Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the/Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Responsibility of organizations

1) Editors who access Wikipedia through an organization's IP address and who edit Wikipedia articles which relate to that organization have a presumptive conflict of interest. Regardless of these editors' specific relationship to that organization or function within it, the organization itself bears a responsibility for appropriate use of its servers and equipment. If an organization fails to manage that responsibility, Wikipedia may address persistent violations of fundamental site policies through blocks or bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This has been recognized in previous cases, and is common sense.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in current form. While I support the intent and principles of this proposal I feel it needs to be modified to reflect the unique circumstances of this case. The above proposal was crafted in response to the Scientology case which had its own particular set of circumstances such as volunteers editing at the Scientology offices (this is my understanding anyway). In this TM case there are some unique circumstances such as a small town with a dominant IP provider (Lisco) and a university campus IP system that is used by faculty, employees, students, guests and the public (on its library computers). I think there is an opportunity here for the Committee to consider this speficic situation and make specific decisions that will have bearing not only this case but on other small towns and other campuses. For example can a student at Harvard use the campus IP system to edit the Harvard article on WP? Such decisions will have ramifications that radiate far beyond the handful of editors who are involved in the case and deserve careful wording that reflects the specifics of this issue.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reservations. The weight given to this principle must be determined with reference to the overriding importance of advancing Wikipedia’s purpose: to be a reliable source of information. Although I have not been an editor on the Transcendental Meditation article, it has serious problems—and these are not due to too much input from the TM editors. Hickorybark (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Analogous cases: (i) Durova has already drawn attention to the anaolgy to Harvard. Should we restrict editors with Harvard IP’s from editing the Harvard article? “But Harvard is not a cult and it doesn’t psychologically damage its students.” Oh, really? (ii) Should we restrict CERN scientists from editing the CERN article? “But there are no pressing controversies regarding CERN.” (In fact controversies range from whether the billions of euros couldn’t have been better spent, to whether CERN might accidently produce a black hole which could destroy the solar system.) The anti-TM group of editors is pushing as aggressive an agenda as any cult, and you don't need a Check User report to see the evidence--the TM article has degenerated to where it reads like a lurid gossip column.

Conclusion. It has been repeatedly stated without argument that Scientology is the controlling precedent for this case. But the dis-analogies are obvious and crucial: the TM organization has a record of responsible conduct and mainstream legitimacy that sets it apart. It is not our mandate to override the judgments of scientific decision-makers, granting agencies, accreditation boards and the like. To be sure, the TM organization has hostile and determined detractors, and they are noteworthy. But they do not represent the mainstream, majority viewpoint and it is not Wikipedia's mandate to try to legitimize their point of view. Moreover, ArbCom is under no obligation to fulfill their wishes regarding the outcome of the current proceedings.[1] Hickorybark (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reservations If Wikipedia can't systematically determine what the IP of an organization is, how can this be a principle? Early on it was assumed that any Lisco IP was affiliated with MUM, but that's not the case. TimidGuy (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This principle is too encompassing. It does not take into consideration the unique situations that can arise on university campuses or in small towns. Some large universities may have multiple IPs while small universities may have IPs that are shared with the surrounding communities, as appears to be the case in Fairfield. ChemistryProf (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Suggesting a few basic principles that will probably be relevant no matter how the case progresses. This one is an exact copy of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS/Proposed_decision#Responsibility_of_organizations and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Proposed_decision#Responsibility_of_organizations. Was originally proposed here in response to an argument that CU-confirmed edits from Church of Scientology Internet connections would not constitute conflict of interest if the editors were volunteers of the Church of Scientology rather than employees. Durova⁴¹² 20:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems reasonable to me as long as the organizations IP address is clearly identified and established. Has this been done? If so, what is it? I don't think that has been made clear yet. That would be an important step in developing and enforcing this proposed guideline.-- — Kbob • Talk • 07:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Already shown as an appropriate statement from the Scientology case. Applicable and relevant here to this case. Cirt (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Keithbob's question, this proposal is a principle rather than a finding of fact. The determination of fact is up to the people who have access to that information. Either way the principle is relevant as a statement of our standards and expectations. Durova⁴¹² 19:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, thanks for the clarification.-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I support the principle of COI here, assuming it can be shown that the pro-TM editors are definitely employed by a TM organization or school. However, I agree with Scientology being a precedent only with the following understandings: (1) Scientology is a religion; TM is not; (2) The Church of Scientology has been accused (with evidence) of many violent and/or evil acts against rebellious members; TM has never fostered or committed violent and/or evil acts (however, certain advanced TMM programs do make unreasonable medical claims). David Spector 03:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This principle is unrelated to whether an organization is a religion. It could apply to any organization. Durova⁴¹² 04:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hickorybark, actually the analogy was to Princeton and Columbia two infinitely superior universities and the original linked proposal included this in the discussion Proposed. This seems flexible enough to cover decentralized corporations, universities, etc. without undue burden on editors who act in good faith. DurovaCharge! 08:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Of course we wouldn't sanction any university without cause, not even humble Harvard. But if COI editors from Harvard spent years promoting all things Harvard and deleting/watering down anything negative about the university, then if the associated policy violations were severe enough this same proposal would apply to them. Durova⁴¹² 22:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, and the clause, "without undue burden on editors who act in good faith," is an important qualifier. Obviously, you aren't expecting university librarians to monitor the WP editing behavior of patrons accessing the internet through the university servers. WP's remedial action would be to block the university's IPs and require individual users from the university to apply to Wikipedia on a case-by-case basis. I appreciate that this is a pragmatic approach to a complex problem, but I think there might be a more straightforward approach which would be both more effective and less judgmental. Is there any precedent for simply locking the contentious pages and ArbCom's hand-picking a committee of the least adversarial and most knowledgeable editors to develop the pages? Hickorybark (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes are outside the remit of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee; it handles conduct issues. Wikipedia administrators routinely block educational institution IPs for vandalism, and when the conduct issues are serious enough those school blocks may be lengthy. When librarians and school administrators fail to resolve habitual problems Wikipedia may do so. Durova⁴¹² 04:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Hickorybark (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that I have a presumed conflict of interest for articles related to Telenor? Taemyr (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is meant to cover ISPs. But if an editor was using the IPs registered to an ISP's HQ, and was making edits that advocated for the company, then that would be a problem.   Will Beback  talk  07:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Kbob: actually the particular wording was drafted by me in 2007 per the links and the quote provided above. The intention was not specific to the Scientology case at all; it is a statement of general principle applicable to any institution. It's a little surprising that confusion exists on that point; let's hope this dispels it. Durova⁴¹² 04:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia have a systematic way of determining the IP of an institution? Wouldn't such a principle be contingent on that? Does it depend on me or someone else getting a statement from the MUM IT department? I'm happy to do so. Would that suffice? How would I present it? And how could it be verified? TimidGuy (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Principles aren't contingent upon practical factors. There have also been places where editors have argued that we shouldn't have a sockpuppet policy because checkuser can be evaded. Practical discussions take place at findings of fact and remedies. Durova⁴¹² 16:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who access Wikipedia through an organization's IP address and who edit Wikipedia articles which relate to that organization have a presumptive conflict of interest.

→ That depends. If I'm a student at a university, and I edit on an article related to my university but perhaps unrelated to what I do there, would that still be a COI? For example, I'm a math student at the University of Wisconsin–Madison (not anymore, obviously, but just for example), and I edit/improve the University of Wisconsin–Madison Arboretum article. I don't take any biology-related courses, and I don't belong to any organizations regarding the arboretum, yet I use the university's IP address(es). Would I still have a COI? –MuZemike 22:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of these editors' specific relationship to that organization or function within it, the organization itself bears a responsibility for appropriate use of its servers and equipment. If an organization fails to manage that responsibility, Wikipedia may address persistent violations of fundamental site policies through blocks or bans.

→ I agree, and that is consistent with the current policies and similar ArbCom cases that we've had. I will note, however, that ISPs/organizations do frequently go deaf with regards to requests of abuse on Wikipedia through their IP(s). Especially with organizations such as universities, it takes more work to find who is causing said abuse and remove/restrict their individual access as opposed to having Wikipedia do that for them and restrict everybody via a university-wide block/ban on their IP(s). This becomes problematic when those organizations complain to Wikipedia when their IP address(es) get blocked, which does happen. –MuZemike 22:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The principle seems untenable and unfair to me. How can a university police the internet behavior of all its students, faculty, and staff? This sounds like a human rights violation. I'm speaking generally here, not about the specific applicability to this case. To establish any applicability to the present case, we must have more complete information. ChemistryProf (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Financial conflict of interest

2) Persons who receive financial compensation from an organization have a conflict of interest when they edit Wikipedia articles about that organization.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It isn't necessary for someone to be paid specifically for editing. If they are paid by the organization then they have interests tied to that organization's existence and prosperity.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tuckerj1976 (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support. In the interest of Wikipedia's primary objective of producing high quality, fair, reliable and informed articles, an editor with an acknowledged conflict of interest may be permitted--even encouraged--to continue editing, if the value of this editor's in-house expertise outweighs COI considerations and the editor has demonstrated the maturity to edit in an objective, neutral manner. This determination would have to be made on a case-by-case basis. Hickorybark (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with reservation As a faculty member at MUM, I have a conflict of interest. TimidGuy (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC) But in general, WP:COI seems skewed. Someone could have an ideological conflict of interest and be intent on pushing things toward his point of view, but not fall under WP:COI.TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This is a stronger and more narrow criterion regarding conflict of interest than #1. The key word here is financial compensation. –MuZemike 22:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with reservation The comments of Hickorybark and TimidGuy deserve weight. In peer reviewed scientific journals, authors are required to acknowledge their potential COIs. It is not assumed that researchers supported by a pharmaceutical company whose drugs they are researching have an automatic COI. The authors acknowledge the possible COI and readers draw their own conclusions based on the transparency of the research. Most readers of such an article would automatically be on guard for conscious or unconscious biases, but each reader would be responsible for deciding for or against the validity of the research. Such a policy might work on WP, but only if everyone were required to reveal their actual identity, occupation etc. ChemistryProf (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Standard definition of financial conflict of interest. Supplements "Responsibility of organizations" proposal above for non-volunteer members of an organization. Covers paid employees and could extend to indirect compensation such as the staff of a contracted PR firm or paid freelancers; see here for a historic example where an individual rejected an offer of paid freelancing. The intention of this proposal is to mirror real world understanding of conflict of interest, thus minimizing the chances that misguided efforts would result in public embarrassment. In a nutshell: if an organization pays you and you edit Wikipedia articles about that organization, then you have a conflict of interest regardless of which computers or Internet connections you use. Durova⁴¹² 20:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed as stated above. Durova brings up some additional relevant details.-- — Kbob • Talk • 07:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is a very good supplement and complementary hand-in-hand with "Responsibility of organizations", above. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. However, note that the validity of COI has nothing to do with Scientology. COI applies even if the TM case has differences from the Scientology case. David Spector 03:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the editors in the COFS and Scientology cases were volunteers so this distinction was not needed there. Durova⁴¹² 04:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal beliefs

3) Personal adherence to a belief system does not in itself constitute a conflict of interest. Individual adherents of belief systems--large or small, old or new--are welcome to edit Wikipedia without fear of sanction when they abide by site policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mere beliefs do not create a conflict of interest. However advocacy is not allowed, whether by believers or dissenters.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- — Kbob • Talk • 07:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a crucial point. When a new editor shows up in TM-related articles, editors who oppose TM typically go after that person, demanding personal information and making accusations of conflict of interest. TimidGuy (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hickorybark (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This precisely differentiates #2 (and what TimidGuy said in his support of #2) from this statement, and this needs to be made clear. –MuZemike 22:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is an important distinction that seems often to be ignored. ChemistryProf (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova⁴¹² 20:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A very good distinction. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed but not relevant to TM. See above [[2]] (this seems unsigned; see WP:SIG)

Conflict of interest

4) Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline advises people to edit with caution in certain situations. In itself it is not a prohibition against editing, although Wikipedia's administrators and Arbitration Committee may weigh conflicts of interest if behavioral problems arise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is just a restatement of a long-standing guideline.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support-- — Kbob • Talk • 07:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is an important point and could be more clear in WP:COi. Other editors, including Will, constantly demand that i stop editing because I have a conflict of interest. TimidGuy (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. Which articles are chief among those you've edited? How much caution does that express?   Will Beback  talk  11:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hickorybark (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This is why the discussion pages are there. I'm afraid that wasn't made clear enough in the ARBSCI case. However, as with ARBSCI, if the conduct of those with a COI goes against proper decorum and practice here on Wikipedia, action may be taken on those accounts and IPs. –MuZemike 22:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ChemistryProf (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support (sorry I'm finding this page a little later than other editors) --BwB (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova⁴¹² 20:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Especially appropriate in conjunction with "Responsibility of organizations" and "Financial conflict of interest", above. Cirt (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest and organizations

5) A conflict of interest in relation to an organization depends upon tangible relationships between an editor and an organization, and is not contingent upon inherent qualities of an organization.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Again, see my example I put forth in #1. Just because you're a member of a university doesn't necessarily equate to having a COI if you edit articles related to that university. In addition, one has to consider neutral point of view and the presence (or lack thereof) of it. I wonder if this is somewhat redundant to the #3 and #4. –MuZemike 04:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Enough conflation has occurred that this is necessary. When assessing whether conflict of interest exists it's irrelevant to introduce certain lines of discussion. If Wikipedia had a COI arbitration case about Microsoft and then one about Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, we wouldn't mingle discussion of COI with debate over which of those two companies is the more socially responsible firm. There is no double standard for conflict of interest. Durova⁴¹² 23:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a battleground

6) Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy or advertising, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, nor is it a battleground for struggle, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Agree completely in theory. In terms of this arbitration, attempting to counter balance the often one sided, pejorative information presented concerning the TM related articles with views that complete the picture, should not be considered soapboxing or advocacy.(olive (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Support with Reservation - What is one editor's attempt at balanced treatment is often perceived by another editor as advocacy. This situation has arisen repeatedly on the TM related sites. ChemistryProf (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This seems apt, and related to evidence that I've presented. TimidGuy (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support A sincere wish that this is the case. --BwB (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed; from the Waldorf Education arbitration. Durova⁴¹² 20:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Substantiation and parity

7) Valid substantiating evidence of misconduct is always necessary before sanctioning any editor at arbitration. Requests to sanction an other side in the name of parity are insufficient basis for action because, per WP:BATTLE, an other side does not necessarily exist.

Parity of conduct is not assumed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Sanctions should only be placed if there is clear evidence of misconduct. Mere allegations should not be the basis for remedies.   Will Beback  talk  07:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova⁴¹² 20:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Technical evidence

1) Technical checkuser evidence has connected a large number of accounts and IP addresses that edit transcendental meditation articles. This nexus of activity included matching IP addresses, close geographic proximity, the likelihood of shared computers, and the use of a small internet service provider that serves the Maharishi University of Management but few other customers.

Per drafter request, most of this is covered by the checkuser result itself. For the size of the ISP see primarily here and here. Also per this the only two other institutions of higher learning within reasonable commute from Fairfield, Iowa are served by other ISPs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose This is factually incorrect. Lisco has over 3,000 customers. Fladrif acknowledges on Evidence Talk that his information was limited. A number of assumptions are being made here. In addition, there is no evidence of shared computers. Any sharing of IP numbers is most likely an artifact of DHCP. No evidence of sharing of IP numbers within the 6-hour lease period has been presented. TimidGuy (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree TG. There is no evidence of shared computers. This statement,"and the use of a small internet service provider that serves the Maharishi University of Management but few other customers." is false. Lisco provides service for most of SE Iowa, is extremely progressive as it supplies fibre optics and MUM apparently a customer, is only one of many customers. I am increasingly becoming concerned by assumptions stated as fact.(olive (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Support. 3,000 customers is very small for an ISP, especially if spread across several counties. There is, in fact, technical evidence of shared computers. There is no question that the technical evidence shows that nine editors who are extensively involved in editing TM-related articles have shared a small network in a small town in a sparesly populated rural area.   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Accepting TG's figure of 3000+ customers as accurate, LISCO is a very small ISP with a principal base of operation in Fairfield, and otherwise operating in even smaller rural communities in Southeast Iowa. The proposed finding is precisely what SPI determined.Fladrif (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have never shared my computer with any one else nor edited with any other Wikipedia editor. Shared computers in my case is not possible. Why does Will Beback have information that is not available to to all editors in this case. (olive (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Olive, haven't you yourself submitted private evidence to the ArbCom? In any case, there is publicly available evidence that I've sent to the ArbCom which indicates shared usage.   Will Beback  talk  16:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No one has shared my computer, ever. I, too, question the assumptions and claims made in this statement. I am unaware of any evidence that could prove that two people shared one computer other than an actual eyewitness who was looking over the shoulders of the two people. If someone claiming to be such a witness is involved in this arbitration, how do we know they are truthful? I smell a big fish here. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The SPI was not conclusive. No evidence of shared computers was presented. I have never used any other Wiki editor's computer to edit Wiki. I have used computers that are accessible to the general public. Assumptions seem now to be presented as facts. --BwB (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova⁴¹² 21:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Will, that estimate is too large by an order of magnitude. Iowa state utility tax records indicate a customer base closer to 300. Durova⁴¹² 20:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Evidence talk page, where this is discussed. Fladrif explains that the utility records are limited to Lisco's role as a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC), which only includes telephone service. The figure he gave doesn't include Lisco's ISP service. The president of Lisco said that the company had $4.8 million in revenue in 2008 and has over 3,000 customers. Why not give Lance Yedersberger a call if there is something that needs to be clarified? Will, there is only technical evidence for sharing of IP numbers, and this is an artifact of DHCP, not sharing of computers. The only concrete proof for sharing of computers would be sharing of an IP number within the 6-hour lease period, and that hasn't been shown. TimidGuy (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TG, the ArbCom and Checkuser have additional evidence that hasn't been disclosed publicly, some of which concerns the matter of sharing computers.   Will Beback  talk  19:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

t's not possible. No one has ever shared my computer. May I see the evidence? TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't shared then you wouldn't be implicated.   Will Beback  talk  16:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's an example of circular reasoning! I was wondering what people were talking about. Hickorybark (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TimidGuy, are there public records to substantiate these claims about revenue and customer base? The figure of under 1000 is based upon Iowa state utility tax records for telephone service in 2008. It is reasonable to suppose that more people have telephones than high speed Internet. If LISCO is exceptional in that regard then please provide documentation and I will revise my evidence and comments as appropriate. Durova⁴¹² 19:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosed conflicts of interest

2) Several of the editors from the nexus of checkuser-connected accounts have disclosed onsite at Wikipedia that they are faculty of the Maharishi University of Management.

PerTimidGuy's support and self-disclosure and this statement.[3] Another deleted disclosure is known to the Committee. A contention has arisen that certain disclosures might refer to another college or university. That alternative looks not very plausible per here. See "Probable undisclosed conflicts of interest" below for supplemental purposes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support I can't speak for anyone else, but I am indeed on faculty at MUM. I have always been open about this. TimidGuy (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support One of the editors admits it, one of them formerly admitted it, and it's obvious in two other cases. A fifth editor appears to be associated with the MSAE grammar school, which is on the campus of MUM. Only two editors have ever disclosed any involvement with any TM-related enterprises.   Will Beback  talk  20:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen on discussion pages two editors say they have had some relationship with Maharishi University, one that claimed to be current (TG) and one that claimed only a former association (olive). If others have said so, I have missed those. I support that two have made statements of current or past affiliation. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A third user has identified himself (or herself) as a "university professor".[4] That same editor has been found to edit in Fairfield, Iowa, which is home to the Maharishi University of Management and also a long drive from the next nearest university.[5] The edits of ChemistryProf have focused on TM-related topics, with only a few exceptions. Among those topics is John Hagelin, MUM professor and nominal resident of Fairfield. If we were to apply logic to this matter, what conclusion must we draw from these facts? It seems logical that the combination of self-identification and behavior show that there is at least one more Fairfield TM editor who's also on the MUM faculty. Which part of that is that incorrect? Given that we're in an ArbCom case, the time for coy evasions is over. Does ChemistryProf have "some relationship with Maharishi University" or not?   Will Beback  talk  10:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are making assumptions. There many universities and colleges in driving distance of Fairfield, and I know several Fairfield people who work at other universities, and other jobs outside of the town. This is an instance of laying a version of truth on an assumption. Fairfield is not remote. And whether an editor is a faculty member at another university you have no way of knowing. COI is not determined by where anyone works, who you know , or who your neighbours are, although you have redefined it this way. COI is about placing an editor's interest above the needs of the encyclopedia, and your assumptions that this is the case is just that, only more assumption, The idea that a mature academic or an mature editor of any kind cannot edit and encyclopedia for neutral content is ludicrous in the extreme. And as for demanding information from ChemProf , why not leave the Inquisition to the Arbs(olive (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It is you who is attempting to redefine COI. There is no assumption that the TM-Org editors are placing their interest, and that of their employer, ahead of the interests of Wikipedia. Rather, the evidence in the case proves that they do. It is indeed ludicrous that mature editors and academics cannot set aside their prejudices and edit neutrally, but the sad and inescapable fact is that they have not done so in this case. That the TM-Org editors, including yourself, continue to repeat incessantly "I am a neutral editor" while continuing to edit in the manner that they have in these articles demonstrates a complete lack of perspective and a fundamental inability to discern the difference between neutrality and POV-pushing. It is clear, for example, that Hickorybark and ChemistryProf, despite their protests to the contrary, view any reliably-sourced criticism of any aspect of TM, the TM-Movement, its research or its leadership as libelous and as evidence of either "derangement" or conspiratorial corruption on the part of anyone who would level such criticism or any editor who would include the well-sourced material in an article. No, we should not have to engage in this process were we dealing with mature editors, but unfortunately we are not dealing with mature editors here, regardless of their chronological ages. Fladrif (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This seem a little redundant to have here. It is obvious that Timid has done this, so why do we have to state it here? --BwB (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova⁴¹² 21:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to Olive's comment, there is no other institution of higher learning in Jefferson County, Iowa. I have updated evidence based upon a complete Google Maps survey of all colleges and universities in Iowa. That survey indicates no need to revise this finding of fact. In the unlikely event that a professor of some other institution has been named at this arbitration case, that person is welcome to send substantiating information to the Arbitration Committee. Durova⁴¹² 21:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. I know a professor couple living in an area not nearly as remote or rural as Jefferson County Iowa, one of whom teaches at the local college in the town they live in, and the other commutes 90 miles each way another college. So, I suppose it's possible, particularly since MUM pays less than MickeyD's pays apprentice fry cooks. It would be worth the drive given the alternative. But, to paraphrase Will, this is ArbCom, and it's time for the charades and Kabuki theatre to end. Fladrif (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova. There are multiple universities/colleges within a 2 hour driving range, many within 1 1/2 hours, and in Iowa that is fast driving...Whether they are in Jefferson County must be a red herring. .As well, as I said on the evidence page, I am not suggesting anything about where anyone works which is none of my business, but am suggesting that we can't base accuracy or truth on assumptions.(olive (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The survey covered the entire state of Iowa with Google's distances and estimated driving times; its complete results can be published if this remains disputed. For purposes of evidence and discussion it is a safe assumption that people do not make more than a two hour round trip daily commute to their place of employment. A small Methodist college and a community college--both outside Jefferson county--are the only feasible alternative commutes for a Fairfield resident. Durova⁴¹² 19:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As followup I have entered into evidence that Iowa Wesleyan College partners with Xwires Broadband for its Internet service and that Indian Hills Community College uses Mediacom. So with regard to workplace editing from LISCO IP addresses by self-declared professors of an unnamed institution of higher learning who reside in or near Fairfield, Iowa, there isn't any viable alternative to MUM. Durova⁴¹² 20:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fladrif, bear in mind that spousal relationships are included under customary definitions of conflict of interest. Durova⁴¹² 20:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that COI policy applies to spouses. I would not be suprised if some of the TM-Org editors are spouses of other TM-Org editors, or have spouses who are MUM or other TM-Org employees. But, I wasn't commenting on that. All I meant was that olive's hypothetical scenario (somebody who lives in Fairfield could teach as far away as Iowa City) isn't completly implausible, since I know someone in a far more urban area in a different state who commutes 90 miles each way to a university faculty job. Fladrif (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urban factors don't necessarily transfer to rural settings. Consider housing prices four years ago: a house with yard in a safe neighborhood was virtually unavailable under an hour's commute to either USC or UCLA even on a tenured professor's salary. Affordable housing is available throughout most of Iowa. Due to the severity of Iowa winters most people would reside close to work if feasible. If these assumptions are flawed, checkuser has probably already found substantial daytime edits from another ISP from at least one account. Additional substantiation could be handled via email to the Committee. This proposal is based upon the portion of evidence which is visible. None of the unlogged/signed over edits by the nexus editors arise from any other ISP than LISCO. Durova⁴¹² 21:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. All of the editors are editing from Fairfield/MVC & environs, and olive's hypothetical is still merely a hypothetical. ChemProf does not deny that he/she is MUM faculty. Fladrif (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probable undisclosed conflicts of interest

3) Other editors from the nexus of checkuser-connected accounts have refused to state whether or not they have a conflict of interest. Technical and behavioral evidence strongly suggest that they do.

Primarily per the checkuser result.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose i have posted the two IPs of MUM on the evidence page. For accounts not emanating from these two IPs there is no technical evidence that suggests a conflict of interest. Most of those living in Fairfield who practice Transcendental Meditation are not employed by any TM-related organization. TimidGuy (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The presumption underlying the wording, "have refused to state," implies that volunteer WP editors are somehow obligated to disclose personal information. But this is inconsistent with the established Wikipedia priority to protect privacy. Moreover, COI only derives meaning if an editor's personal interests or affiliations are at odds with their desire to produce reliable, high-quality articles from a NPOV. This has not been shown in the present case.It's an unargued assumption based on the spurious analogy to the Scientology case.Hickorybark (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This case isn't about "most of those living in Fairfield", it's about nine editors. Only two of them have directly admitted being on the faculty of MUM. Another claims to be a professor. While he hasn't said where, there is no other university near Fairfield. A fourth gives the appearance of being a professor, and a fifth is possibly associated with the MUM's attached high school, MSAE. Further, some of these editors have used IPs registered to MUM itself. Although TG has admitted being on the MUM faculty, even he has not followed COI guidelines but instead has actively edited all related articles, even participating in disputes over content.   Will Beback  talk  20:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All of the involved editors have posted from Fairfield. TimidGuy and olive stated that they are MUM faculty members. Hickorybark admits to knowing John Hagelin, and inserted into the Flipped SU(5) article verbatim language from a MUM faculty member's paper at a TM-Org website. ChemistryProf says he is a professor, has reviewed the majority of the TM research, has written and published research, has attended large TM assemblies, met thousands of TM practitioners and teachers, and watched hundreds of hours of videotape of the Maharishi. Roseapple, stated that she has lived in Fairfield for 30 years, teaches at public and private college, secondary and primary schools, and extensively edited the MSAE article. There can be no question that these editors at minimum are current or past TM-Org employees. Fladrif (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have never tried to hide the fact that I am a long-term practitioner of the Transcendental Meditation technique. But I have made it clear from the beginning on my user page and on talk pages that I edit with WP:COI always in sight. It is obvious to any neutral party that my edits and my commitment adhere to the goal of WP to "produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia... ". ChemistryProf (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is obviously not true. I have not refused to state whether I have a COI. I have stated several times, as have others, that I do not have a COI. IP address do not prove conclusive COI. --BwB (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova⁴¹² 21:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other assertions of conflicts of interest

4) It has been proposed that other editors in this arbitration may be employed by the pharmaceuticals industry or might be professional exit counselors with a conflict of interest. No evidence, technical or otherwise, has connected any named party in this case to those counterclaims.

Assertions include this, Hickorybark's comments at this proposal, and a few others. Proposal adapted from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes#Involvement_by_security_organs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose Here is prima facie evidence of collusion between anti-TM editors and this anti-TM blog, funded for the sole purpose of discrediting the TM organization. [6] Note that this blog had detailed information about the upcoming TM Arbitration as early as January 29, a full 17 days before I was notified of these proceedings. Hickorybark (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was going to oppose this since the editor who posted the rant was apparently a sockpuppet of an uninvolved editor, and so the issue was better avoided. However Hickorybark's comment shows that apparently some TM-editors think this is an actual issue. To reply to his comment, a large and complicated SPI cases had been filed on January 26, with notices going out to seven editors, meaning that anyone who watches the topic would have seen them. (Hickorybark was not notified because at the time there was no on-Wiki evidence that he was also from Fairfield.) I know nothing about that blog or who runs it, but the assertion that it is "funded for the sole purpose of discrediting the TM organization" seems remarkable and should be supported by evidence.   Will Beback  talk  20:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is in the title of the blog: The Honest Truth About TM. Hickorybark (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is the title evidence of the funding? Most blogs are either totally unfunded or are funded by advertisements. There are no ads on the blog. What evidence is there that it is funded?   Will Beback  talk  22:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem acknowledging the possibility that they are self-funded, but that in no way invalidates my point, which is prima facie evidence of collusion. Their self-described mission is to target the TM organization, not to monitor Wikipedia's ArbCom. The fact that they were so rapidly alerted suggests that an involved editor probably alerted them, and that would most likely be one of the editors pushing for this investigation. Hickorybark (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That someone with an anti-TM blog picked up THREE DAYS LATER that a SPI was started at Wikipedia is not prima facie evidence of anything. Fladrif (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid making personal comments like that. Even in an ArbCom case where behavior is a legitimate topic, using language like that is inappropriate. As Durova suggests below, please refactor your remarks.   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for editing your comment   Will Beback  talk  19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support It is funny to see the accusation that I may have work for the pharmaceutical industry. I guess whoever made that claim did not look at the last ARBCOM I was involved in at which time I was smeared as an "anti-pharma" editor. :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Conspiracy claims of different flavors have now been advanced here by HB, the sock, and David Spector, and on Talk pages by ChemProf. If anything, this underlines how alike this case is to the Scientology ArbCom, as both organizations assert that mainstream medicine and the pharmaceutical industry conspire against them. Fladrif (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to set the record straight, I have never stated or implied that any editor on these articles was being supported by the pharmaceutical industry. In talk pages, I once pointed to the acknowledged influence of the pharmaceutical industry on government agencies and in particular on the AHRQ agency at NIH that produced the famous report on meditation and health. If any editor mistook my reference to mean I suspected WP editors of being under the same type of influence, they misread what I wrote. However, if the shoe fits, then wear it. ChemistryProf (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, your position is that the AHRQ meta-analysis of meditation research, which concluded that the vast majority of meditation research was so badly conducted and documented that it could not even be subjected to meaningful analysis; that of 230 studies of TM and TM-Sidhi, (the largest group in the approximately 800 meditation studies that could be analyzed) only three were of good quality, and only one of those, a short-term study with a limited sample, showed a statistically-significant improvement in hypertension; that no valid conclusions could be reached from the entirety of the body of meditation research as to the efficacy of meditation in treating any health issue; and that no valid conclusions could be reached as to the efficacy of one type of meditation versus another, should be discounted and ignored as biased and in error because, you contend, without evidence, that AHRQ and the NIH (the same folks who have given tens of millions of grants for alternative medicine research, including to MUM for TM research) are tools of the drug companies and this incented them to come to a negative conclusion. I'm sorry if my statement above implied that you contended that any editors were tools of the drug companies; I agree that you have not said that in any post. Fladrif (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova⁴¹² 21:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Hickorybark's contention about a blog, it would take much more to establish that any named party in this case has a financial conflict of interest. For comparison, my own blog uses "wiki" in the subtitle and uses the WMF logo, but the logo is fair use parody and I've never received a cent from the Wikimedia Foundation. Higher standards of evidence apply to everybody. Durova⁴¹² 23:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fladrif, would you refactor please? Durova⁴¹² 00:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Durova⁴¹² 01:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on "higher standards of evidence" applying to everybody. In your next proposed finding you speculate on "a likelihood of offsite coordination." The evidence is extremely circumstantial and would never hold up in a court of law, and is certainly no better than the evidence I provided of possible collusion with dedicated anti-TM blogs.[7] Hickorybark (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Durova on COI. I’m worried about the double standard implicit in your addressing the COI issue primarily (exclusively?) to the pro-TM editors, some of whom are evidently MUM faculty. COI is determined with respect to an editor’s ability to edit objectively. So ArbCom will (at least implicitly) need to make some kind of ball-park determination of what an objective, neutral TM-page should look like. The premise that TM is a cult has been sneaked in, based on the unargued and spurious analogy to Scientology, and is evident in Will Beback’s Opening Statement[8] and in many of his comments. I addressed this in my Evidence Statement and, obviously, Will Beback and I don’t agree on what neutral editing should look like for the TM pages. Hickorybark (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MUM faculty typically receive room and board and a small monetary stipend. To call this a “financial conflict of interest” is giving MUM more credit than it deserves. Now I understand that established WP precedent says that volunteers for an organization also need to be aware of the temptation to advocate on behalf of their organization. However, Will Beback’s insistence that, where there is controversy, editors should either disclose their affiliation or stop editing is not supported by what WP:COI actually says, or by established WP practice, in which a sizable majority of WP editors are active on pages that they have a significant interest in or affiliation with. Hickorybark (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In attributing COI, the distinction between the pro-TM editors and the anti-TM editors becomes blurred. Whether or not Precautionary’s concerns[9] about possible funding for the anti-TM blogs is correct, I don’t know; but I wouldn’t dismiss his statement as a “rant,” as Will Beback has[10]. The main point is that the contributors and principals on the anti-TM blogs are very likely among Wikipedia’s anti-TM editors. And even for editors, like Will Beback, who don’t have any connection to the anti-TM blogs, their ideological commitment to the patently false and defamatory “cult/pseudoscience” POV undermines their ability to edit neutrally and objectively. Hickorybark (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no double standard at all. If any named party in this arbitration case can be demonstrated to be a professional exit counselor, etc., then please bring forth evidence to connect those individual(s). Durova⁴¹² 21:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hickorybark seems particularly upset that TM is compared to Scientology. Yet the two movements are frequently mentioned together in both academic books ([11][[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]) and the mainstream media.[20][21] Both are international, multi-billion dollar movements with many things in common. There are and many differences too, but for the purposes of the ArbCom looking at Wikipedia editors the similarities are significant.   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will and Hickorybark, if you wish to argue that sort of point please do so elsewhere. That distinction has no bearing on any of my proposals. The previous case could have dealt with conflicts of interest from Widgets, Inc. for all it matters. Conflict of interest hinges upon quantifiable relationships to an organization, but not upon the specific character of an organization. Durova⁴¹² 23:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The double standard is that you aren't considering the ideological commitment of the anti-TM editors, and the extent to which this idelogical commitment conflicts with WP's interest in providing non-defamatory articles [22]. It has not been shown that any TM-affiliated editors are engaging in advocacy by objecting to defamatory content or that this conflicts with WP's mission. Hickorybark (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never supported any defamatory edits. Please explain yourself.   Will Beback  talk  16:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ideological commitment, in itself, does not generate conflict of interest. To introduce that as a factor would require withdrawal of proposed principle 3 (Personal beliefs). Durova⁴¹² 20:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organizational affiliation, in itself, does not generate conflict of interest, either. This is true in real-world determinations of COI and even more so on WP, where privacy is protected. Per WP:COI, "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia … and the aims of an individual editor." In directing your findings of fact primarily to the checkuser accounts, I believe you are misconstruing the evidence. The TM articles do not read like advertising copy, so advocacy by the checkuser editors is not the problem. But the articles do contain defamatory text. And it is not “mild criticism” that I am objecting to. For one thing, it is the preponderance of emotional trigger words—“cult,” “pseudoscience,” “crackpot,” “fringe” and the like. The sheer weight of repetition (19 references to "cult" and "occult" on the TM page) gives the impression that Wikipedia is endorsing these slanders. And the “TM and Cult mania”[23] page and the “MUM stabbing”[24] page exist for the purpose of putting TM in a negative light. (This is the definition of defamation.) How will banning the checkuser editors help to make the pages less defamatory? Hickorybark (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That covers a lot of ground, most of which is unrelated to any proposal or opinion of mine. If you wish to discuss the case in general please do so on the talk page. Durova⁴¹² 02:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing

5) Editors from the nexus of checkuser-connected accounts have engaged in tendentious editing. Their edits exhibit advocacy for transcendental meditation with a likelihood of offsite coordination. Tendentious behavior has included misrepresentation of reliable sources, circular argumentation, and unsubstantiated assertions of misconduct against other editors. Over the course of several years repeated attempts at dialog, noticeboard input, and formal dispute resolution have failed to resolve the resulting problems. They have disregarded advice from uninvolved editors that could have mitigated the appearance of impropriety in their actions.

Per here and here. It surprised me to see in MuZemike's evidence that I had responded to a COIN thread about this dispute in April 2007: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_5. During the three years that passed I had forgotten that discussion, but upon review it appears the dynamic and several of its participants remain basically unchanged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose This is not factual. The assertions of misconduct against other editors are substantiated, including three blocks for incivility (two against Fladrif, one against The7thdr, who was ultimately permanently banned) and numerous additional warnings. There was only one attempt at dispute resolution, in early 2007. The evidence for misrepresentation of sources is heavily weighted against those who oppose TM. TimidGuy (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting unsubstantiated claims as fact is problematic.(olive (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose This is so one-sided as to constitute misinformation. Advocacy has not been shown and neither has off-site coordination. Moreover, a quantifiable relationship to the organization being investigated is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish advocacy. Here are some of the pertinent statements from WP:COI:

• "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits are in the best interest of Wikipedia."

Note that the best interest of Wikipedia is the bottom line, not the CU reports. These are largely redundant anyway, in the present Arbitration, since several of the targeted editors have acknowledged their affiliations, either openly or privately to ArbCom.

• "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor."

An editor’s objection to defamatory content is not in conflict with the aim of Wikipedia, and is not COI.

• "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."

CU reports and instituional affiliations are relevant; but they have been over-emphasized in the present investigation.

• "When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline on conflict of interest."

The frequent challenge that editors should either disclose themselves or stop editing is not in keeping with Wikipedia’s priorities.

• "In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests. An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved."

In my case, the edits for which I am being indicted had to do with my objection to defamatory material including raw epithets (“nonsense,” “crackpot,” "psedoscience") characterizing John Hagelin and his ideas. Although I have not edited the core TM articles, there the situation is worse.

Many of the TM pages are currently defamatory, including two pages[25][26] whose sole purpose is to promote “a negative image” of the TM program. (See WP’s article on Defamation. [27]) I have no objection to WP articles discussing controversies and negative opinions in an unprejudiced, neutral manner. But the problem with the TM articles is that defamatory terms appear so frequently, and are so poorly sourced, that a reader cannot avoid the impression that Wikipedia is endorsing them. In objecting to defamatory material and attempting to make these pages more neutral, an editor is not engaging in COI. Hickorybark (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles that Hickorybark lists as defamatory have been edited extensively by the other TM editors. Apparently any negative material, no nmatter how well-sourced, is considered defamatory by this user. The John Hagelin article is indeed a "core TM article", given his leadership role within the movement.   Will Beback  talk  20:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It is true that Fladrif and The7thdr have received blocks for incivility, but that is not the point of this finding, which concerns the TM editors. This finding accurately summarizes the editing behavior of the TM editors. Collectively and individually, they have misrepresented sources, engaged in circular arguments, and have made unsupported charges against other editors. Many attempts at dispute resolution have been tried. When outside editors have given clear responses the TM-editors have ignored them, examples of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. They have failed to follow advice on how to alter their behavior. Considering that the editors are all part of a small-subpopulation of a small town, that several of them have the same employer, and that the movement strongly promotes group practice, it is very likely that the editors all know each other personally and see each other frequently.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This statement is untrue. From my observations, the tendentious behaviors have come primarily from anti-TM editors like Fladrif, The7thdr, and those that have been charged as sockpuppets of The7thdr. At times there have been arguments and even battles, but these always are precipitated by the actions of an editor such as these who have been blocked for incivility. It is clear even to a casual observer that these editors are set on imposing their personal POV on the article and are not supporting the primary interests of WP. ChemistryProf (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have to admit, I needed to look up "tendentious" in the dictionary. What I found was "tendentious, tendencious [tɛnˈdɛnʃəs] adj. having or showing an intentional tendency or bias, esp a controversial one". Based on this definition, I do not engage in tendentious editing. --BwB (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova⁴¹² 21:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LISCO ISP

LISCO is a small ISP that serves the Maharishi University of Management and has been heavily used by the nexus of checkuser-connected accounts. A survey of edits to Wikipedia from unlogged LISCO IP users determined that the overall edits of LISCO IP users was significantly different from that of the nexus, in which several accounts have been single purpose accounts: unlogged LISCO IP edits have contributed to a broad range of topics. This differs from the Scientology arbitration case, in which the Church of Scientology itself had dedicated IP addresses.

Per this. Due to the small size of this ISP and its owner's purported links to the TM movement, there have been editors at this case who suggested that LISCO was synonymous with the TM movement. Unlogged edits from LISCO IP ranges cover too broad a range of topics to justify that assertion. Remedies (if any) would more appropriately be crafted around editor behavior rather than upon this small business.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose This intent focus on IP addresses is a "red herring." It is a distraction from the most important issue, which is the degeneration of the TM pages under the single-minded "cult/pseudoscience" advocacy of the anti-TM editors. Hickorybark (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted per Durova's clarification, below. Hickorybark (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support LISCO is almost an in-house ISP. All of the TM editors here have used it as their network.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova⁴¹² 20:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this finding is to specify that LISCO is not an in-house ISP. The comments of the first two responders (Hickorybark and Will Beback) seem to be out of touch with that; perhaps something wasn't sufficiently clear about the wording of the proposal? Durova⁴¹² 21:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Duroval, could you link to that evidence please? There is so much information across the pages here it is difficult to keep track. This maybe the problem above. Also, if your analysis is correct then this would of course make the claims by SPI identified fairfield TM editors even less believable Tucker ^talk 21:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the bottom subsection of my evidence to this case, posted shortly before this proposal. Took a few days to double check the technicals. The link for the Soxred report on LISCO IP range edits (especially from the 69 range) shows that overall, TM subjects are a minority of unlogged LISCO edits. Durova⁴¹² 22:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Principles

Wikipedia's Purpose

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas or to publish or promote original research is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Keithbob

Support Hickorybark (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, except for the "camaraderie" part.   Will Beback  talk  02:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it's important to broaden the issue, as this does, to include personal agendas. If an editor has a personal agenda to the point that he deliberately misrepresents sources and violates NPOV, this is every bit as much a problem as COI. TimidGuy (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps collegiality would be a better word.(olive (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Support This important goal often seems to be missed by some editors. "Collegiality" is a better word. ChemistryProf (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Agree with Will - the "camaraderie" sentiment is understood, but not the appropriate word to use, I feel. --BwB (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Behavior

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith and harassment is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Keithbob

Support Hickorybark (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This has been a serious problem in these articles, and needs to be addressed. Evidence includes the several blocks that have been issued against abusive editors. TimidGuy (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though I haven't seen evidence of actual harassment or personal attacks.   Will Beback  talk  02:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though I agree with Will's comment and would add that WP:AGF does not require that one continue to assume good faith after the bad faith exhibited by an editor makes the assumption unwarranted. Fladrif (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support One doesn't have to read far on the discussion pages for TM articles before finding examples of abuse. ChemistryProf (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't think KB is saying that there has been harassment and attacks, only that Wiki prohibit such behaviour. --BwB (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Single Purpose Accounts (variation of Cirt's version)

3) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally and should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Keithbob

Support Hickorybark (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though that applies to all editors, including the many "primary purpose editors" involved in this topic. Note also that Keithbob has discouraged the inclusion of a non-neutral SPA in this RfAR.[28] If Kbob believes in this principle then I don't understand that objection.   Will Beback  talk  02:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reservations WP:SPA is an essay, not a policy or guideline. As long as one follows policies and guidelines, is civil and cooperative, and shows evidence of a commitment to Wikipedia's principles, then it shouldn't matter which articles one edits. SPA is frequently used to browbeat editors whose view is opposed to one's own. TimidGuy (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with TG. For example an artist might only edit articles on art and a scientist on science. Even editing one article is not prohibited and why should it. Volunteers may come in with only a certain amount of time and interest, and may spend that on one article. As long as policies/guidelines are being adhered to there is nothing wrong with such editing patterns.(olive (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Support ChemistryProf (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --BwB (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sock and Meat Puppets

4) In some instances it may not be possible to determine with complete certainty whether multiple editors with the same or different IP’s are sockpuppets or meat puppets. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Keithbob

Support Hickorybark (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure How does one tell that two people "make the same types of edits"? Seems impossible to me, which means that this criterion makes no sense. David Spector 02:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This seems to be applicable here, since we have many editors with the same POV using the same IP networks.   Will Beback  talk  02:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reservations This is skewed toward a particular group of editors with similar IPs. But if a group of editors with diverse IPs invariably act in concert, then it seems equally an issue. It would be nice to generalize the scope of this. TimidGuy (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"make the same types of edits and same agendas" is a highly subjective way of judging. Given recent experiences something more objective would cause less difficulty in the event of disputes.(olive (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Reservations The scope and wording of this are not sufficiently clear that I can give my support. Sockpuppetry and Meatpuppetry are real phenomena, but they are not easy to prove or disprove. Especially is it clear that while having the same ISP can lead to "false positives" in determining sockpuppetry, the other side is also true, that is, having different IPs obviously does not prove that a person is innocent of these charges, a "false negative" situation. I can support a principle along these lines only if the wording and concepts take these facts into consideration. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure Agree with Olive and Spector that the wording "editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits" is subjective and ambiguous enough to cause problems. --BwB (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Casting Aspersions

5) It is unacceptable for an editor(s) to continually accuse another editor(s) of misbehavior or conflict of interest in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Keithbob

Support David Spector

Disagree. If problems persist then they need to be raised repeatedly. User talk pages are appropriate places to raise concerns about editing. However, note that Olive has repeatedly made accusations about my editing and has refused to substantiate those claims. Making unsubstantiated or false accusations is a form of incivility.   Will Beback  talk  02:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Raising the same issues repeatedly can be a form of harrassment. It's better to keep the discussion focused on the content of the article, and not revert to ad hominem. This has been the basic premise of scholarly debate for millennia. Hickorybark (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If an editor persists in repeated violations of WP policy despite numerous warnings, other editors have no other option but to repeatedly raise the issue, particularly where, as here, the matters such as WP:COI had already been dealt with on the appropropriate noticeboards, administrators had already instructed editors not to edit these articles, and those instructions are openly defied. The same for WP:MEDRS. When tendatious editing and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is rampant, the fault is on the editors violating the rules, not on those pointing it out. Fladrif (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI accusations are improperly used on an ongoing basis when used as disputes about edits arise. COI accusations concerning comments on the COIN are improperly used when first, the COIN is mischaracterized, and second when this mischaracterization is used to deflect discussion away from the editing and focuses on the editor.

Reword: It is unacceptable for editors to accuse other editors of misbehaviour or COI if doing so moves discussion from the edits to attacks on an editor , deflecting and disrupting the editing/discussion process. The process of dealing with misbehavioiur and or COI belongs on Noticeboards after an initial comment on a user's page. If editors persist in inappropriate editing behaviour further dispute resolution may be necessary.

Support if reworded to more closely follow WP:COI proscription against harassment: "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban."

Support with reservations The reworded version above is more acceptable than the original version. When the COI accusations are repeated incessantly and toward a whole group of editors for whom no COI has been shown, these invariably drive the article away from the content and onto the editors. In that case, there is need for some action other than the ones recommended at Wikipedia:COI#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This seems to re-write many policies and guidelines. User talk pages are appropriate places to discuss issues with individual editors. When COI issues haven't been addressed it is inevitable that they will come up repeatedly. In this case, the "COI accusations" have proven to be true. TM editors have regarded any mention of their connections to Fairfield, MUM, or related people as personal attacks and harassment, and they've ignored COIN threads, so this remedy wouldn't allow any reasonable recourse for editors who are concerned about chronic COI issues.   Will Beback  talk  22:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support reworded version. TimidGuy (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose. This proposal asks the Arbitration Committee to override Wikipedia:COI#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest, which recommends direct discussion as a first step in resolving suspected conflicts of interest. Durova⁴¹² 05:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rewording. Still asks the Committee to overrule a site guideline. The COI guideline recommends dispute resolution as the second step. This proposal isn't tenable; it would step outside the Committee's remit. Durova⁴¹² 04:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

6) Harassment is a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting one or more targeted persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating them. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for targeted persons, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Keithbob

Oppose Haven't seen any evidence of this extreme behavior. David Spector 02:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is no sign of any behavior like this in this case.   Will Beback  talk  02:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The regular COI accusations and frequent demand that certain editors reveal personal information is a form of harassment. TimidGuy (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hickorybark (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is no credible claim of harassment, and no editor claims to have been frightened, intimidated or discouraged from editing by any alleged harassment. None of the TM-Org editors have been the least bit shy about editing, even when told by 3 admins not to at COIN. Other editors have been driven off in frustration with the utter futility of dealing with the TM Org editors, which is another problem, but not harassment.Fladrif (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That editors attempt to keep editing is not an indication that harassment is not occurring. Repeatedly badgering an editor to reveal personal information is a form of harassment. As well, as with any kind of harassment in real life, effects may be felt in the long term rather than immediately. At the same time unless one follows the actual pattern overtime of harassment, the behaviour may be difficult to describe or document, as again is the case in real life. As well, the person doing the badgering on multiple pages and over a period of time with what they consider to be the best of intentions may not be aware that their behaviour is causing distress. Finally, in some cases discussion on the badgering behaviour may only lead to more badgering. If that has become the pattern, the person being harassed may choose to walk away from any further contact, and the potential for further distressing situations. Certainly a remedy is needed on this, but not sure at this time what the wording should be.(olive (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• Editors have been asked to either disclose their connections to the topics they're editing or to recuse themselves from actively editing, as specified by WP:COI. That editors from Fairfield and MUM refuse to acknowledge any COI, and continue to edit articles about their neighbors, their employers, and the local heads of their movement in a partial fashion, is why this case came to the ArbCom.   Will Beback  talk  21:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This intent focus on COI is a "red herring." It is a distraction from the real issue, which is the degeneration of the TM pages under the single-minded "cult/pseudoscience" advocacy of the anti-TM editors. Per WP:COI, conflict of interest occurs when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. You have yet to make the case that the repugnance I and some of the other editors feel toward turning WP pages into a litany of sourced smears is a COI. I would work to right that wrong on any page I edited, TM-related or not. I have no objection to noting that there is hostile criticism of TM, the TM research, the TM organization, etc., provided it is done in a balanced, neutral manner. But the anti-TM editors are not satisfied until the page reads like Trancenet or one of the other anti-TM blogs. This is unacceptable to me, and it ought to be unacceptable to you, also, and to any intelligent, fair-minded person. It is not COI on my part to expect more neutral editing. If TM were really a cult, and having an affiliation meant losing one's integrity and capacity for independent thought, maybe you would have a point. But that perception of TM is so far from the reality as to be risible. Hickorybark (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't added any evidence of me adding excessive "anti-TM" material. I don't know what Trancenet is, but it looks pretty mild.[29] In contrast, you, Hickorybark, have been adding text directly plagiarized from a pro-TM blog.[30][31] When confronted, all you said was "I'll be more careful in the future."[32] So for you to claim, without evidence, that editors including me are making the topic look like an anti-TM blog while at the time you are copying material off of a pro-TM blog does not seem be an honest concern. Of course, to someone within the movement even slightly negative material might seem outrageous. It's that lack of objectivity which is why COI is a problem.   Will Beback  talk  04:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such as ChemistryProf, who, in one of his very first posts, claimed that it was a violation of NPOV for someone to have included in the article a statement that the TM Movement's research and organization have been questioned, and a further violation of NPOV to use the term "TM movement".[33] Fladrif (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't like the term "TM movement," mainly because it's too vague. I don't know what it means. Hickorybark (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One may dislike the term for a variety of perfectly legitimate reasons, but claiming that using the term shows bias isn't one of them, since the term is widely used by reliable sources, and used even on offical TM Org websites. [34]Fladrif (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with reservations There are definite instances of harassment in the TM articles, although these have not often been brought to a notice board or otherwise adjuticated. One reason for the lack of complaints is probably that some editors have only a little time to edit. They are therefore hesitant to become involved in a drawn out conflict, choosing instead to just do the best they can under the oppression. Or they may simply refrain from editing, which seems to be a primary objective of the oppressors. For this principle to be fully supported, the definition of conditions may need to be made clearer. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too vague and too much room for subjectivity. --BwB (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose too much of this hinges upon subjective factors and too much of the rest is weakly defined. A report for 3RR violation undermines a person's standing within the community; it may be done with the intention of causing the adverse and unpleasant effect of a userblock which can discourage a person from editing; and afterward the threat of another 3RR report may intimidate that person. All of these things are acceptable if 3RR really was violated and the individual resumed edit warring after a block. This propoal's wording could be used to construe harassment from any legitimate whistleblowing at all. Durova⁴¹² 05:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological or religious dispute – or to publish or promote original research is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think this principle is important in this case.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in its current form. Again, we need proposals that accurately reflect the needs and specific characteristics of this case which has distinctions from the Scientology case. For example Scientology is a self proclaimed religion and ideology. Transcendental Meditation is a mental practice and although there are related organizations and philosophies, they are not necessarily (individually or combined) ideological, philosophical or religious. This point is debatable and both sides of the debate could cite many reliable sources. It should be noted that the TM organization does not characterize itself in that way, while Scientology does. So while I accept the fact that TM and its organizations and related philosophies have been lumped together and referred to as Neo-Hindu, a New Religious Movement and a cult by various authors etc., this is not a universally held conclusion or fact. Therefore this issue should be addressed in a separate proposal. If the above proposal read: "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas or to publish or promote original research is prohibited" I would support it. I will propose this in my own section-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hickorybark (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with reservations I agree with Keithbob on the specifics of this proposal for this situation, with one exception. While the TM technique and other TM related articles are quite distinct from Scientology and other topics with ideological, philosophical, or religious content, the existence of personal agendas opposed to TM is obvious in this case. Several of the frequent editors of these articles exhibit their strong biases on discussion pages, yet they claim to be neutral in their edits. This needs to be looked at systematically. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --BwB (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Purpose_of_Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a reasonable and uncontroversial application of a principle from a previous case. Durova⁴¹² 19:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's worth noting that the expectations include, but are not limited to, civility. In this case there have been repeated unsupported charges of misconduct, for example.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in the current form. I would enthusiastically support a proposal that cited behavioral issues such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith. Significant evidence of these forms of disruptive behavior have been presented on the Evidence Page so it is certainly relevant. However, despite some superficial parallels to Scientology, this case has its own distinct dynamics and characteristics. Therefore the carbon copying of proposals from Scientology to this page is problematic in my view. In particular this proposal's mixing of many guidelines, some of which are not prominent in this case makes this proposal one I cannot support in its current form.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hickorybark (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Refusal to engage in further discussion on whether editors have been badgered or harassed does not mean such behaviour has not occurred . Nor is a subjective judgement by an editor looking in a convincing argument that harassment has not occurred. Discussion that opens a door on a topic that has caused distress over a long period of time is not easily dealt with when the opening comment is, I don't see harassment how about changing your wording. Discussion on such issue may require trust that the editors in the discussion are truly interested in the discussion and both sides of the argument. If that is not the situation editors should not be surprised when when conversation breaks down, and the harassed editor walks away unwilling to deal with more of the same.(olive (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Decorum. Cirt (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that the allegations surrounding this case appear to be considerably less extreme than the allegations surrounding the Scientology dispute, where one editor had used a sockpuppet account to make wholly unfounded accusations regarding controlled substances and prostitution. The current case could bear a little bit more time to see whether its misconduct allegations will actually be supported: one editor made strong assertions (but theoretically supportable allegations) at RFAR and then added she would be unavailable for evidence until today. So without prejudice as to the factuality of those assertions, as a principle this is reasonable. Perhaps modify with the caveat that WP:AGF defaults to good faith misunderstanding in non-extreme situations. Durova⁴¹² 19:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updating. The evidence for claims of harassment is completely unconvincing. I have attempted to discuss the problem on the evidence talk page without success. Additionally, another evidence presentation mistakes normal inquiry about conflicts of interest for harassment. Durova⁴¹² 17:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Single purpose accounts

3) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This case has both single purpose editors (both "pro" and "anti"), and even more "primary purpose editors", those who devote 50% or more of their edits to a topic. Both are allowable, but they need to edit neutrally.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in current form. I would support the proposal if the phrase "instead of following their own agenda" was removed. That phrase is very vague and could be interpreted in many ways. Editors on WP may have many agendas ie. to improve their copy writing, improve their social skills and on and on. -- — Kbob • Talk • 18:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hickorybark (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common sense statement and supportable.(olive (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Support in principle, but it should be noted that these articles have had far more accusations against those who have been labeled proTM simply for trying to keep the article neutral than against those who have jumped at every possibility to insert material, often extreme and from clearly questionable sources, that denigrates the topic. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support and second Prof's comments above. --BwB (talk) 10:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts. Cirt (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable at any arbitration where single purpose accounts are involved. Durova⁴¹² 20:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors with a single voice

4) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP or corporate server are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per comments above and below Tuckerj1976 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a key principle in this case. The POVs of the nine TM editors are indistinguishable, they edit the same articles to promote the same agenda, and they all use the same IP networks.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support However, IMO, note that this also applies to editors Fladrif, Doc James, Kala Bethere, and perhaps others, who, although clearly different people in both their specific concerns and writing styles, appear to have a single and equally strong POV in opposition to the validity of TM. If the editors in opposition to the pro-TM editors were less convinced that TM has no value, I doubt that this RfArb would have occurred. For example, in past years I have several times raised the issue of high course fee (and even mention of less expensive alternatives to TM) as being notable for inclusion and have been opposed by pro-TM editors, yet no problem resulted because we discussed these issues cooperatively without UNCIVIL (pretending to be BOLD) deletions or reversion prior to consensus being reached. Many current active editors on both sides (not just pro-TM) use BOLD to hide POV. I feel that progress in creating a better article has been impeded roughly equally by editors who are admirers and critics of TM. I don't care if editors have a strong POV; I do care if they are incapable of cooperating in creating an NPOV article. David Spector 22:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wikipedia needs to be evidence based and based on the best available evidence. Using the highest quality reviews on a controversial topic is a must. As well extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. The fact that this same organization claims that TM can give one eternal life, allow one to fly, and become invisible at will should make all of use skeptical of their claims.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in current form. Will propose an amended version in my own section.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I support Cirt's principle, but not the partisan comments by User:Fladrif, User:Will Beback and User:Doc James, above. Hickorybark (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As I stated above, way to subjective to be fairly enforced. As is the case with remedies that rely more closely to subjective criteria, opens the door to abuse.(olive (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose Sure the Arb Com "may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor". But I strongly suggest that each editor is investigated as an individual editor and judged by the ArbCom on the sole merits of his/her edits and behaviour and not allow individual editors to be tarred by the same brush. --BwB (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Multiple_editors_with_a_single_voice. Cirt (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this originally came from the Starwood arbitration. A necessary functional solution to a difficult problem: without this it would become too difficult to remedy exploitive conduct at certain topics. Durova⁴¹² 20:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of accounts

5) Creating accounts ("sockpuppetry") or coordinating accounts ("meatpuppetry") to manipulate the consensus process; to create alliances to reinforce a particular point of view, to engage in factional or tactical voting; to create "ownership" of articles; to evade topic bans or blocks; or to otherwise game the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully support Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's impossible to determine whether it is one person or several using a computer. Collusion between editors to promote a POV or exert ownership of a topic is harmful to the consensus model of Wikipedia editing.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supported as a principle, but agree with Will that pinning down SOCK or MEAT is difficult. Even OWNing is hard to show, since long-term editors have more knowledge and experience about the article and its history, giving them a naturally more authoritative position than newcomers. In this case, both pro-TM and anti-TM editors have frequently shown OWNing behaviors toward more neutral editors, such as Will and myself, not only to each other. David Spector 00:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hickorybark (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support-- — Kbob • Talk • 21

49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Standard.(olive (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Support ChemistryProf (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Is this not how it is currently on Wiki? --BwB (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Use_of_accounts. Cirt (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting as a principle. Durova⁴¹² 20:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer the word "disruptive" rather than "prohibited". Although it amounts to the same thing.Taemyr (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feuds and quarrels

6) Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully Support The article has grown far to "heated" and this principle must be applied Tuckerj1976 (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The same set of editors keeps getting into similar disputes with a succession of other editors.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Note that this applies to all problem editors, not just pro-TM editors. David Spector 03:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because there has been no evidence presented thus far that indicates that this kind of situation has occurred in the current case. Rather there have been accusations so disruptive behavior, incivility, harassment, personal attacks and edit warring and we should draft proposals that address those issues and avoid ones (like fueding) that don't seem to apply specifically to this case.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support In the present case, however, I think it will be too difficult to fairly and judiciously administer blocks and restrictions to individual editors or IP address ranges, in a way that will enhance the contested pages. Hickorybark (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure --BwB (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Feuds_and_quarrels. Cirt (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask the specific relevance to this case? In Scientology there was one administrator who had followed a particular editor to multiple articles, etc. and had been through ten formal dispute resolution attempts with that editor (it was entirely one-sided; the editor had never followed the administrator). Shortly before the arbitration began that administrator showed up at AE, denigrating that same editor without disclosing the history. Combined with other evidence it added up to an obvious grudge. A crucial element is how that grudge carried across multiple subjects for several years. If the TM dispute is contained entirely within the scope of the TM subject, then AGF defaults to normal editorial differences. It would only be appropriate to include this principle if there is evidence of conflict outside the normal scope of shared topical interest. Durova⁴¹² 20:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you have a very good point. I think this is just simply a very good thing to have as a more generalist principle. I leave it up to the judgment of the Arbitrators as far as inclusion in a final decision. Cirt (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the evidence takes a certain direction this could become very relevant. Will wait and see regarding that. Durova⁴¹² 20:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Transcedental Meditation organization and editors

1) Editors involved with articles regarding the Transcedental Meditation movement (TM) have been tied to IP ranges from Fairfield, Iowa and Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa, which is home to the Maharishi University of Management, who runs the TM movement. Many of the editors appear to be editing as single purpose accounts with likely meatpuppetry and possible sock puppetry occurring at articles within the topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support SPI findings are incontrovertable. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Fladrif (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There's no question that these editors are using IPs based in Fairfield/MVC, a small community. TM practitioners and employees of the movement account for at least a quarter or more of its population. It is likely that these editors know each other personally and participate together in the daily group practice sessions. It is possible that they are friends, neighbors, colleagues, housemates, or even spouses of each other.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes obvious with a little examination.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as stated Maharishi U doesn't run the TM movement. There are TM organizations all over the world. The university has no relationship with them. And the university has no relationship with many of the TM organizations in the U.S., such as Maharishi Ayurveda Products International. Further, my feeling, per my comment below is that there's no solid evidence of sock puppetry, and in particular sock puppet abuse. You won't find an instance of a particular IP accessing two different accounts within the 6-hour lease period. Further, it should be obvious to anyone familiar with the participants that the TM-related accounts have very different editing patterns and manner. Each account began as an obvious newbie, unlike Tucker and Kala. TimidGuy (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maharishi U doesn't run the TM movement. Bevan Morris is the head of the university and the head of the U.S. Country of Peace. The same people run both organizations.   Will Beback  talk  12:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's incorrect as stated. It would be more accurate to say that two individuals associated with Maharishi University of Management also head two TM-related organizations in the U.S. The relationships among all the various organizations in the U.S. are unclear. But in no way, for example, does Bevan Morris oversee The Raj Health Spa in Fairfield or Maharishi AyurVeda Products in Colorado. The whole idea of the TM movement is an artificial construct. There are many independently incorporated organizations. TimidGuy (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The King ( Nader Raam )of the movement is in the Netherlands yes? [35] This pages seems to explain it a bit Global Country of World Peace --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the "U.S. Country of Peace?" Get your facts straight. Hickorybark (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, for those of us outside the movement the names are a bit confusing. I meant the "United States Peace Government", of which Hagelin is president and Morris is prime minister. Hagelin and Morris are nominal residents of Fairfield, Hagelin is on the faculty of MUM and Morris is its president, and they are the leaders of the TM movement in the U.S.   Will Beback  talk  03:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on every article, the factual details can be confusing. That’s why it serves WP’s purposes to retain knowledgeable editors. Hickorybark (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeThe SPI CU reported mixed technical findings and the matter has been forwarded to ArbCom for further consideration. Furthermore there has been no consideration or analysis of the behavioral evidence by any authoritative person(s) and text is still being submitted on the Evidence page. This premature proposal and voting is the Wiki equivilant of a lynch mob.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Although the IP range proves that all of the pro-TM editors are located at or near the campus of MUM, that doesn't indicate whether they are paid to edit WP to PUSH their POV. It doesn't indicate which, if any, are merely students or outside TMers, who would not fall under COI. It doesn't imply SOCK for reasons amply explained by TimidGuy, Will Beback, and others. It certainly has nothing to do with MEAT or SPA (SPA is indicated elsewhere in this case, I believe, and there is no way to show MEAT without a sting operation, and it may be too late for that).

Oppose. Hickorybark (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose MUM is an accredited university with it's own limited roles and responsibilities as an educational institution, but, as far as I know, it does not administer all the TM programs throughout the USA. A point I have made on the talk pages is that the TM related articles seem to be very US centric. TM is taught and practised all over the world and therefore it is not possible to say that MUM runs the TM movement, an international organization. --BwB (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Statement_by_MuZemike and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors/Archive. This could likely be changed to be more specific to the accounts and IP ranges involved. Cirt (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncomfortable about bundling two communities in Iowa with the Maharishi University itself. If an arbitration arose about the Princeton-Columbia college rivalry, would we encompass all of Princeton, New Jersey in a finding? All of New York City? Findings ought to be applicable to any comparable situation. This one needs refining. Durova⁴¹² 20:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Fairfield and MVC are essentially one community due to their proximity. The total settlement is quite small (about 11,000), in the middle of a sparsely populated farm region. It's quite different from universities or movementets based in larger communities.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably be posting another, more specific one, at some point soon. Cirt (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Within the scope of the privacy policy I'm wondering what's possible here. Back during the COFS arbitration one set of editors made specific claims about the Church of Scientology IT configuration. It would have strengthened their argument if they had provided a letter from the IT management to confirm what they were saying (several times I invited them to do so, but they ignored the suggestion--ultimately it appeared their claims were not very credible). A relevant question to this case is what the viable range of Internet connection options are for small midwestern communities. Some of the editor posts at RFAR and evidence imply that a single provider dominates nearly the entire market for the university plus two nearby communities, and assigns a narrow range of IP addresses randomly within that geographic area. I wonder how true that bears out. The local Chamber of Commerce should be able to provide basic information, and if the Maharishi University IT department is cooperative it might be possible to make better sense of things. Durova⁴¹² 21:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been noted that it is not the ip range of an area but the ip range of a specific internet service provider with clear links to the TM org (Lisco) This has been found not just by the sockpuppetry case that started these proceeding but by the involved editors themselves [[36]], [[37]]. It has also been noted by the "TM editors that Lisco provides free wireless access in the town of Fairfield [[38]]. Thus any IP "ban" or restriction could be based on this service provider and in connection to TM article specifically. Such restrictions are already in place with existing service providers due to abuse of their highly dynamic IP address assigning. This could easily be imposed here in a manner such as I have suggested above [[39]] Tuckerj1976 (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per your input, Tuckerj1976, I have researched free LISCO WI-FI availability in Fairfield, Iowa. The local public library appears to be using a different service, which leaves three to five local coffee shops and restaurants. Am not aware of whether LISCO reassigns IP addresses randomly throughout that geographic area. Durova⁴¹² 22:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(un-dent) Thank you Durova. That is surprising given the statements of claimed sockpuppets/Lisco users [[40]]. Perhaps I am simply to believing and naive. It makes things a little more difficult . I think I should simply step-back and leave this WIKI itself. I thnk you may have more expertise than me in this area. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the 2000 census the city of Fairfield, Iowa had a population of slightly under 10,000 people. It wasn't likely a community that size would have a very large number of public wi-fi locations and some of those would use other carriers. The assertion didn't pass the sniff test. A few Google searches and phone calls took care of the rest. Durova⁴¹² 00:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case it helps, the two fixed IPs used by Maharishi University of Management are 69.18.50.85 or 209.152.117.83. Any Wikipedia editing from campus would be from one of these two IPs. There are four Internet providers in Fairfield: Mediacom, Iowa Telecom, Natel, and LIsco. Of the approximately 2,500 people in Fairfield who practice Transcendental Meditation, I would estimate that 200 at most are employed by Maharishi U and other Maharishi-related institutions. And that estimate would be high. Somewhere someone gave a figure of 200 staff at Maharishi U. That seems way way high. Plus, a large number of staff don't practice Transcendental Meditation, such as food service and maintenance personnel. Yes, Lisco was started by someone who practices TM, as many other businesses in Fairfield have been. When meditators moved here, they had to create their own jobs. Fairfield has received national recognition for being a center for entrepreneurial activity. Most of the employees at Lisco aren't meditators. Anyway, the upshot of this is that I think you can assume that someone editing Maharishi-rellated articles from a Fairfield IP may practice TM, but beyond that I don't know that you can make any assumptions. Also, because Lisco's DHCP server atypically assigns a new IP when the lease time is up, I don't think there's solid evidence for sock puppetry. I wish that allegation could be dropped. I don't think you'll find a single instance of a particular IP being used to access two different accounts within the 6-hour lease period. Please let me know if you'd like me to get a statement from Lisco or any of the other service providers here in Fairfield regarding anything. TimidGuy (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced assertions do not help. Substantiation would be very useful. Durova⁴¹² 17:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help if I forwarded the e-mail from the campus IP department that gave the info about the dedicated IPs used by MUM? Here's an article from 2006 that gives info about a quarter of the population doing TM.[41]. Here are articles in the New York Times and Wired magazine about the entrepreneurial activity in Fairfield, which is sometimes referred to as Silicorn Valley.[42] [43] An interesting case study on Fairfield being one of the nation's most entrepreneurial small towns.[44] These sorts of sources support the idea that someone living in Fairfield isn't necessarily employed by MUM or a Maharishi-related organization. I could get a statement from Lisco about the behavior of their DHCP server. But even absent that, the principle behind dynamic allocation is that it allows ISPs to have fewer IP numbers than they have customers. The DHCP server reclaims and reallocates IP numbers after the lease time expires, such that a single IP number can be used by different customers. I'd like to do anything that can help clarify. Please let me know what that might be. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to the arbitrators to make the determination. Several of those things appear potentially useful; it would depend on the details. A statement from the campus IT department? Probably yes, if it speaks on point. An article comparing Fairfield to Silicon Valley? Probably less so; that's likely to stall at the comparison of Silicon Valley's 2 million residents to Jefferson County's stable population of 16,000. Best to focus on the items that would be most convincing. Durova⁴¹² 04:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where would I present a statement from campus IT? The point of the articles was to establish the number of meditators in Fairfield and the fact that most are not employed by TM-related organizations. TimidGuy (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies do not allow the republication of full copyrighted texts. So for that the thing to do would be to email the arbitration committee. Short excerpts may be quoted, same as with quotes from any other copyrighted text. Procedural questions of this sort would be better directed to the arbitrators and clerks, though. Durova⁴¹² 05:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just counted the names in the MUM directory. There are 339 faculty and staff listed there.[45] The associated lower school on the MUM campus, MSAE, reportedly has another 49 full or part-time faculty, and presumably has at least a dozen staff members, so that brings the total to about 400. TimidGuy has said that there are 2,500 TM practitioners in Fairfield, meaning that 16% of them work directly for MUM or MSAE. If we exclude children the number is perhaps closer to 20%. Fairfield/MVC is also the home of other TM-related businesses such as MAPI, which sells $26 million in herbal supplements annually. The TM editors have been extensively engaged in editing the article on those products, MVAH.   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that MSAE uses the same LISCO network too.[46]   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Scope of Transcendental Meditation movement topic ban

1A) Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Transcendental Meditation movement or practitioners of Transcendental Meditation movement, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth.

1B) Editors topic banned under this remedy may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. The Committee will consider each request individually, but will look favorably on participation in the featured content process, including both production of any type of featured content, as well as constructive participation in featured content candidacies and reviews. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Scientology was a different situation. Topic-banning only the pro-TM editors ignores the almost-equal infractions by the anti-TM editors. David Spector 16:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How was that case different? As for the anti-TM editors, one was banned last summer and another has been blocked twice, so their behavior has not been excused.   Will Beback  talk  21:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as currently worded. This phrase is much to vague and problematic. "practitioners of Transcendental Meditation movement, broadly defined," A specific list of existing articles should be specified. At present there are 35+ BLP's list in the Practitionars of Transcendental Meditation category. This group of articles is arbitrary and with no criteria for inclusion or deletion. It ranges from the Maharishi to Shirley MacLaine to Igor Kufayev (who?). -- — Kbob • Talk • 19:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is indeed very similar to the Scientology case. As for Kbob's objection to including TM practitioners in the scope of the remedy, I'd ask what these articles all have in common: Andy Kaufman, Clint Eastwood, Franklin M. Davis, Jr, Ben Foster (actor), Joaquim Chissano, Merv Griffin, William Scranton III, Jeff Peckman, Ron Parker, Doug Henning, Ramani Ayer, Shirley MacLaine, Nat Goldhaber, John Gray (U.S. author), and Leon MacLaren? They all have two things in common: they are biographies of TM practitioners that have been edited by Kbob. I would guess that Kbob or other TM-editors have worked on the majority of articles in category:Transcendental Meditation practitioners.   Will Beback  talk  21:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. An an analysis of the articles in question would suggest this would be the only remedy (I will post evidence shortly as to how long these COI has been taking place). I hate to use these words but there are editors here who seem to be "true believers" in the TM movement. The evidence is clear, they will stop at nothing (including manipulation, harassment, off and on wiki collusion, etc to advance a certain positive spin on the movement. The history of the TM article alone is littered with instructions and advice from admins and others to stop but none of this has ever been successful. The history of these articles shows that only a full topic ban will work. I have already said (and will repeat here) I would be happy to be topic banned from this article also if I felt this would help redress the mess that this article is in) Tucker ^talk 02:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is greater evidence for violation of policies and guidelines on the part of those who oppose TM. Please see the evidence page. This evidence includes deletion of secondary sources, misrepresentation of sources, using sources that are clearly disallowed, and incivility. Such a one-sided solution as proposed here is problematic. Plus, all the evidence suggests that putting these articles in the hands of editors who oppose TM would not be in the best interests of Wikipedia. TimidGuy (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is greater evidence for violation of policies and guidelines on the part of those who oppose TM. - Really? Which evidence are you referring to, exactly?   Will Beback  talk 

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Scope_of_Scientology_topic_ban. Cirt (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary topic ban

2) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Transcendental Meditation movement topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

All topic bans and blocks arising out of this sanction are to be recorded at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of discretionary topic bans may be made to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Scientology was a different situation. Topic-banning only the pro-TM editors ignores the almost-equal infractions by the anti-TM editors. David Spector 16:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This remedy does not distinguish between "pro" or "anti" editors. Any editor who is consistently unhelpful may be topic banned after warning.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. My experience with two administrators on these articles, has been that within very short periods of time and with no accurate evidence, wildly inaccurate judgement calls were being made. These are contentious articles and topics, and experience shows that admins have as many misconceptions, agendas as any editor who has no tools. No admin should have the power to make this kind of decision and take subsequent action in such highly contentious situations and very often, agenda- driven, editing environments.(olive (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Support, though I think in this situation it may be better to go through the more careful process at WP:AE. That should address Olive's concern.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support and for reasons see my comments above. Given the manipulation that has already taken place (and sock/meat puppetry involved) it would appear that once the existing editors are topic banned they will be replaced. This will need to be monitored and any future editors closely monitored. It is a sad state of affairs but I think necessary in this instance. Tucker ^talk 03:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Discretionary_topic_ban. Cirt (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Single purpose accounts with agendas

3) Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Transcendental Meditation movement or practitioners of Transcendental Meditation movement and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year. Any editor topic banned under this sanction may be re-blocked at the expiry of a topic ban if they recommence editing in the topic having made few or no significant edits outside of it during the period of the topic ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems like this would solve the problems.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Scientology was a different situation. Topic-banning only the pro-TM editors ignores the almost-equal infractions by the anti-TM editors. The wording of this section only addresses infractions by pro-TM editors. The problems interfering with productivity related much more to CONFLICT among all editors, not POV-PUSHING by only the pro-TM editors. David Spector 16:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the "anti" editors have been SPAs, so this would apply to them as well.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It has very problematic wording such as "focused primarily on Transcendental Meditation movement or practitioners of Transcendental Meditation movement" what constitutes "primarily focused"? The category of articles: "practitioners of Transcendental Meditation movement" is far too vague and grammatically incorrect (who practices a movement?) to do anything but cause future arguments. This phrase "having made few or no significant edits outside of it" is also far to vague. We want to create remedies that are clear cut, easily recognized by all parties and easily enforced by Administration.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is based on a judgement that hasn't even occurred, that there is non neutral, agenda driven editing. The wording is general, inaccurate, and problematic.

-Practitioners of the technique are numerous, and mostly unknown.

-There is an underlying, incorrect assumption that the technique is something practiced as a part of a movement with a guru intact, an assumption that is at the heart of much of the contention on these articles.

-those with some knowledge of the technique and other programs may be knowledgeable and useful editors.

-focused primarily... too subjective

-identifiable agenda... subject to underlying biases

-No admin should have this kind of power as stated above especially on contentious articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs)

Support. This is a standard remedy for problem topics. Note that it is not concerned with editor who are TM practitioners, but rather with editors who are solely or primarily engaged in editing articles about TM and TM practitioners.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas. Cirt (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "practitioners" clause conflicts with a principle I authored above. Durova⁴¹² 05:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Account limitation

4) Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Transcendental Meditation movement-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. They are to inform the Committee of the account they have selected, and must obtain the Committee's approval if they wish to begin using a different account. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Scientology was a different situation, so it is irrelevant. However, there is clearly more than ample abuse to prohibit IP address editing of this controversial article. David Spector 16:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as worded, because it is again vague. There are at present 80 articles listed in TM Movement category. Also what kind of remedies? Admonishment? Disruptive behavior? Incivility? temporary blocks?-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is necessary to make the remedies enforceable. Note that for several weeks last summer one of the main TM editors, TimidGuy, refused to log in or to acknowledge that he was a registered user and instead sought to give the impression that he was a new and different editor, a violation of W:SOCK. Note that this also covers "anti" editors like the now-banned 7th who used a succession of accounts.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Account_limitation. Cirt (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sufficient technical evidence exists to justify this, and this proposal would not be impacted by the differences between this CU result and the Scientology CU result. Durova⁴¹² 05:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors instructed

5) Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Transcendental Meditation movement-related articles or discussions on any page is directed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account;

(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;

(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and

(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

Any uninvolved administrator may on his or her discretion apply the discretionary sanctions specified in Remedy "Discretionary topic ban" to any editor failing to comply with the spirit or letter of these instructions.

A note concerning these restrictions shall be placed on the talkpage of each of the affected articles. In case of any doubt concerning application or interpretation of these restrictions, the Arbitration Committee may be consulted for guidance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support fully and applicable to what has become "both sides" (pro and so called "anti" TM. While I really do believe that the "anti" camp are simply depicted so due to the enormous astroturfing that has taken place by the TM organization (and thus editors who have stayed with this article and argued so bravely against it should be applauded) there is always the possibilty that editors may arrive who really do have a negative POV against TM and will ignore any positive findings that might exist or arise. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This restriction is reasonable (but has nothing to do with Scientology, for reasons I have already stated). David Spector 03:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is mostly an extension of #4. It further includes a requirement to make general disclosures of connections that could be seen as creating conflicts of interest.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Editors_instructed. Cirt (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Goes hand in hand with 4. Durova⁴¹² 05:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support fully. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This sanction is reasonable (but has little to do with Scientology). David Spector 03:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Enforcement_by_block. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved administrators

2) For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict and is not mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee decision in this case. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any disputes about whether an administrator is involved or not are to be referred to the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support The Scientology ArbCom is directly on point and is controlling precedent for this matter. This does not require extensive or prolonged debate. ArbCom should act swiftly to protect Wikipedia by putting an end to this long-standing and untenable abuse of Wikipedia through clear organization-sponsored astroturfing. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support for reason stated above Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is reasonable (but has little to do with Scientology). David Spector 03:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, as applicable and relevant to this case. From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Uninvolved_administrators. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Reasonable transfer of an effective provision. Durova⁴¹² 05:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edited: Moved here from incorrect section noted by User:Durova. I hope this is now correct.

Overview

So called "Extremist pro TM editors (where data and facts are highly manipulated to make it appear that TM is the answer to the worlds problems (Issues in diverse arenas as: health, wealth, politics, terrorism, crime, education, the paranormal, and world peace). These "extremists" will only accept any edit that places TM in a highly positive light and include (after a quick review by myself):

• TimidGuy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ChemistryProf (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Littleolive oil (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Roseapple (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bigweeboy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Keithbob (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Luke Warmwater101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

(There maybe more, I simply note the presence of the above as the most persistant on the main TM article (although the investigation that started this suggests others maybe sockpuppets of the above and indeed of each other)

There is also one Administrator that seems to have an unusually friendly relationship with the "extremist" pro TM lobby Dreadstar (However, this maybe incorrect and would require wiki admins to investigate, although already mentioned I believe by others)

Editors

Above users should be topic banned from any article related to TM or the TM movement. This would mean that they could continue to use their obviously detailed knowledge of WIKI editing in other areas of WIKI. Thus helping to benefit other articles with their obvious editorial skills while those concerned about their POV maybe able to breath easier. At the same time, this would diminish fears by some (and the editors conduct) that these editors are part of a large organization with clear social, political and educational agendas allowed to propagate those agendas here unrestricted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

SupportFladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree that these seven accounts constitute the main "pro" group. However I'd disagree that they "only accept any edit that places TM in a highly positive light". I think this group is aware of Wikipedia policies and practices and know that at least token acknowledgement of criticism is required to avoid looking like blatant POV pushers. However they have consistently removed critical or non-positive material, minimized it, or buried it with excessive amounts of rebuttal or "balancing" material.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The problems here are not caused just by the obvious POV-PUSHING by pro-TM editors, but by the many infractions by most of the active editors, as I discuss in my Evidence section. I suggest that most sanctions should apply to all editors engaged in edit warring or other continuing infractions of WP policy, regardless of their POV. Adoption of this Proposal would result in the virtual elimination of those with knowledge about TM, leaving those with an anti-TM POV to redo the article to have that POV. The unreasoning prejudice for TM among some editors is balanced by an unreasoning prejudice against TM among others. David Spector 03:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose' Evidence is still being submitted and there is mounting concern that the POV pushing and problematic behavior exists with several editors not listed above.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Thank you for moving the proposals. These procedures can be confusing. Will give the evidence more time before commenting upon proposed remedies. Durova⁴¹² 20:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses

It has been noted already that most of these editors live in the same area and seem to use the same service provider as the TM movement LISCO. We are aware that people using other service providers (perhaps due to highly dynamic IP addresses (such as certain mobile internet providers) have restrictions placed on them when editing wiki articles without a registered user id and indeed have to go through a check process while generating a new user account. It would not be difficult, given the findings here [[47]] to do something similar with LISCO users. This would thus not restrict all users of these IP group completely from editing most WIKI articles

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Banning all LISCo IP addresses from the TM-related articles, subject to specific exceptions on application to ArbCom, would impose no undue hardship on any Fairfield area editor.Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Remedies should be focused on editing TM-related articles. No one has identified problems with the editing of unrelated topics.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, in principle, though this needs to be reworded in somewhat clearer language. Cirt (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Blanket banning of all LISCO IP addresses is too broad. It excludes a major community having unique knowledge and experience with the topic, not just those editors who are a source of problems here. David Spector 03:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this a sweeping and prejudicial proposal that would unfairly target thousands of Fairfield residents who happen to choose Lisco as their IP provider. I much prefer Timid Guy's proposal that selected editor who are Fairfield Lisco users be required to obtain a dedicated IP.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the evidence provided by Durova shows that Lisco IPs are involved in editing other articles and apparently successfully and without issue. The only problems arise when Lisco IP users edit TM org articles (although all seem to be the same set of editors). This is complying evidence as to why LISCO IP users should be topic banned. This is supported further due to the close connections between Lisco and the TM movement (it needs to be noted that not only is LISCO's main client the TM org and that it's founder is a TM mediator but that the company has been a continued contributor the political aspirations of the movement [[48]]. Of course it should be that the "problematic" editors are topic banned anyway, but given that the supposed dynamic ip range of LISCO users (And the fact they can buy permanent IP addresses there is nothing stopping them registering new User Ids and starting the whole issue all over again (although I would suspect that Checkuser relies on other factors than just IP address) Topic banning LISCO ip ranges would help reduce this as an issue. Tucker ^talk 23:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

IP addresses directly owned by any part of the TM movement

Any to IP address connected directly to the TM movement should not be allowed to edit any TM related articles)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Clearly a conflict of interest. This could be reworded to be a bit more direct and specific, as per WP:ARBSCI. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure I'm not sure that everyone at an 'official' IP address would necessarily be a problem editor. David Spector 03:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Durova has already made a proposal that contains better wording and a more universal application.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment Re: Keithbob's comment, I haven't made any remedy proposals at all. So nothing I've put forward is an alternative to this proposal. It's possible that I might propose remedies at some future time. Durova⁴¹² 05:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TM movement should not be allowed to edit based on religious or "spiritual" grounds

It has been noted by some editors that people from the TM movement should be allowed to edit TM articles based on religious or spiritual grounds and this leaves us in something of a difficulty. However, it must be noted that the TM movement itself claims that it IS NOT either a religion or a spirituality. Instead it claims the following:

What is Transcendental Meditation?

Transcendental Meditation is a simple technique which gives a unique quality of rest to mind and body. It allows stress and tiredness to be released in a natural way, resulting in greater energy, clarity and enjoyment of life. [[49]]

Will it interfere with my existing beliefs?

No. Transcendental Meditation is a simple technique that aids relaxation, relieves stress and provides physical and mental energy. The practice does not conflict with any existing beliefs, religious or otherwise; yet at the same time people often find that regular meditation gives clarity and perspective to their highest aspirations. [[50]]

Then is TM a spirituality? Again, the TM movement (at least publicly) says no [[51]]

So what is TM? The organization clarifies itself with this statement:

(Transcendental Meditation) will enhance your religion. Millions of people of all religions -- including clergy of all religions -- practice Transcendental Meditation. They report that the technique, by increasing energy and intelligence and eliminating stress and fatigue, allows them to better follow the tenets of their religion. Transcendental Meditation is a technique, pure and simple. It involves no religion, belief, philosophy, or change in lifestyle. [[52]]

If this is correct then using the argument that TM should be allowed to edit the article on religious or spiritual grounds most be a flawed and is indeed an unusable argument (we cannot claim that an organization is something it says it is not, except in the context of an article and then only using reliable sources) . On this basis it should, and can only, be treated in the same way that WIKI would look at any organization making medical, social political or educational claims (and especially those where an exchange of money takes place). Would WIKI allow a drug company (or its representatives) to edit its own wiki page where it appears manipulate clinical data to suggest that its newest drug will "cure cancer" even when mainstream science says it does not? Clearly it would not. Tuckerj1976 (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. The posture of this matter is not whether adherents to some religion can edit an article about their religion. It is whether an organization, whether one regards it as a commercial enterprise or otherwise, should be permitted to astroturf Wikipedia.Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is an oddly worded proposal, which I took to mean that "I have a right to edit about my beliefs" is not a reason to excuse an editor from the propsals and remedies that may be adopted here. I did not take it to mean "You may not edit about your beliefs" to be a suggested policy. If it were, I would oppose that, and as the others point out, it is impossible to know what any editor believes. Behavior is what ArbCom should be concerned with. Fladrif (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am trying to say this: There have been comments that members of religions or faiths should be allowed to edit any article about that faith. In other words, a Christian for example should not be banned from an article on Jesus simply because they are a christian (and are likely not to have a completely NPOV on academic material that says he was not really a god or the literal son of a god)and so on. And this I would agree upon. WIKI should not prejudice against a person based on religious views. However, this guide cannot be applicable to TM because according the TM movement it is neither a religion , a faith or a spiritually. Thus any decision on what groups of people may edit these articles cannot be based on any normal notion of religious "tolerance". Thus the usual allowances (or if you like tolerances) for this cannot be made in this instance. Tucker ^talk 23:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. We have no way of knowing what people really believe, and belief alone is not the problem. An editor can believe something to be true without using Wikipedia to promote it. The main problems that this case should address concern advocacy and collusion.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think the reasoning is sound. There is no 'holy right' to PUSH a POV here. We cannot know that God takes a stand for or against any topic. TM is not a religion. All contributions should be reliably sourced. David Spector 03:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm not sure I understand this proposal, but if the idea is that followers of TM should not be allowed to edit the articles, I disagree quite strongly. We don't exclude people for their beliefs, but for their editing behavior. Woonpton (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too diffuse. Durova⁴¹² 05:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova: you are not the first person to say that about any attempts I make at "official/officious" writing :-)Tuckerj1976 (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

Representation of sources

1) Fundamental to creating an encyclopedia is the fair and accurate representation of sources.

Support This is a fundamental principle and relevant to this case since there has been significant dispute over reliable sources.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Following policies and guidelines is key

2) Regardless of point of view or conflict of interest, fundamental to the creation of a worthy encyclopedia is adhering to the letter and spirit of Wikipedia guidelines and principles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Civility

3) The basis of Wikipedia is an environment of collaboration. Editors who are uncivil create a hostile environment that harms collaboration and discourages participation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

4) A core principle of Wikipedia is Neutral Point of View. All articles, and especially those that are controversial, must strictly adhere to NPOV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

An encyclopedia that anyone can edit

5) Editors who have a point of view, or even a conflict of interest, are not barred from editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit — a principle that helps to insure that a neutral point of view is maintained.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Misrepresention of sources

1) Some edits to Wikipedia articles have not accurately represented sources and some may be instances of malfeasance. In writing that Transcendental Meditation worsens hypertension and in writing that some TM researchers retracted their conclusions of earlier studies, Doc James and Fladrif falsely misrepresented sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose The proposed finding is unsupported, and contra-factual. The Diff's TG supplied on the Evidence page do not support the proposed finding. The text TG contested was supported by reliable sources. At minimum, this appears to be an attempt to involve ArbCom in a content dispute.Fladrif (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have seen instances of the same and find the stated evidence convincing. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Incivility

2) Editors have been uncivil. Fladrif has been blocked twice for incivility and has received additional warnings, and others have been uncivil to a lesser extent, creating a hostile environment in Wikipedia articles related to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support I have observed this behavior on the part of many anti-TM editors. Evidence is solid. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Demands to cease editing

3) Although policy doesn't require that editors with an admitted conflict of interest cease editing, a number of editors have frequently said that policy disallows such editing and have repeatedly asked an editor with an acknowledged conflict of interest to stop editing mainspace.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support I have seen this many times. Evidence is convincing. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Requirement of fixed IP

1) Because Lisco's server atypically assigns a different IP after the 6-hour lease time, resulting in the situation where a given IP that's been used by one editor is occasionally assigned to another, creating the appearance of sock puppetry, Lisco customers are required to pay the extra cost of a fixed IP if they want to continue editing Wikipedia, thereby having a specific IP always associated with a specific account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. TimidGuy (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how this proposal would solve the problems of TM editors taking ownership of TM-related articles, COI, tag teaming, and non-neutral editing, except that it would make it easier to identify accounts. Further, I don't see how it could be determined easily whether users have fixed or non-fixed IPs short of repetitive and invasive checkuser tests.   Will Beback  talk  21:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't see that this even is a remedy. It is just a statement of fact relevant to determining sockpuppetry, which is not a major issue. David Spector 03:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This does not address any of the real issues in this case, and would be unduly burdensome to enforce. Is an named and logged-editor with LISCO as an ISP going to be sanctioned because their posts are coming from multiple IP addresses? Is some hapless admin or clerk supposed to monitor that? Arguments that the SPI's finding of rampant sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry is a mistake due simply to LISCO's use of dynamic IP addresses is a red herring.Fladrif (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This proposal addresses a specific issue of this case ie. dynamically assigned IP addresses giving the appearance of sock or meat puppetry which is a central point in this case. It gives the CU or Committee a layer of assurance that each IP address is unique and allows the Fairfield editors to be on a level playing field with all other editors and prevents them from being falsely accused of sock puppetry when there is no behavioral basis for it. Other accusations such as ownership, tag team editing and POV have been made by both sides involved in this case, and can and will, be addressed in other proposals. Citing them here as reasons for opposing this proposal seems rather odd.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support as particularly relevant to this case. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Not certain of the factuality of this. At any rate, it appears to be outside the scope of normal remedies. Durova⁴¹² 05:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could get a statement from Lisco. I certainly wouldn't mind paying the extra money for a fixed IP if it would make the Wikipedia community more comfortable. TimidGuy (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Oppose We are an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Even those that are assigned IP addresses dynamically. Taemyr (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors admonished

2) Fladrif and Doc James are admonished for misrepresenting sources. All editors are encouraged to be fair and accurate in their representation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. There was no misprepresentation of sources by me or Doc James. See above.Fladrif (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Civility restriction

3) Fladrif and other editors are admonished for continued incivility. All editors contributing to articles related to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi are subject to a civility restriction. Any Admin who identifies an instance of incivility can, without warning, restrict an editor from editing articles related to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi for a period of one week. Each successive restriction will be lengthened by one week. If violations continue, an editor can be permanently restricted from editing these articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support This is a fair and appropriate proposed restriction and is particularly relevant to this case. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Battleground

1) Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Inappropriate ways to influence consensus

2) Attempts to influence consensus by threatening, maligning, or ignoring other editors are inimical to the goal of writing a collaborative encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Ownership

1) User:Littleolive oil, User:ChemistryProf, and User:TimidGuy were acting in consort to establish ownership over transcendental meditation articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose I am a sporadic editor on these articles. While some of my suggestions on talk pages have been opposed by most other editors, when this happens I do not hesitate to withdraw the proposal. I have never made significant changes to an article without the support of a majority of editors. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Dreadstar

2) User:Dreadstar used administrative capabilities to help another user avoid scrutiny. ([[53])

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Oppose as misinformation. I note that I have given the Arbitration committee information concerning my off Wikipedia harassment. My personal information was oversighted to help guard against further concerns. As I originally stated in my evidence, I could have asked a couple of admins to do the job whom I trust, because of their honesty, neutrality, and superior skills when dealing with other editors such as GTBacchus and Dreadstar. Suggestions that I acted dishonestly to hide my editing are unfounded. I suggest SA be more careful when making accusations.(olive (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)) Complete information is with the arbitrators. (olive (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• I did not delete Littleolive oil's user page to help her avoid scrutiny; she was harassed off-wiki, and posted a request on my talk page to delete personal information she had previously posted:[54]. Dreadstar ☥ 04:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

There was no reason for Dreadstar to do a poor man's oversight when Wikipedia:Requests for oversight is so responsive to requests. That Dreadstar didn't realize that such actions would be problematic for an involved administrator such as himself to do is very problematic. There is cause to believe that this collusion was inappropriate and those of us who are not administrators have no way of verifying whether what you say is true or false. Besides this, the deletion was done inappropriately as a total deletion of your talk page material rather than removal of the few offending diffs. At the very least, this is a botched job and at the worst this represents an example of a violation of Dreadstar's terms of adminship in the first place, though he changed his requirements for recall after he was granted the mop and bucket. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Article probation

1) Pages related to transcendental meditation (broadly construed) are subject to article probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dreadstar cautioned

2) User:Dreadstar is cautioned to avoid even the appearance of impropriety when using administrative tools.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Article probation sanctions

1) Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility, tendentious editing, and assumptions of bad faith. Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the climate change pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 year in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Article probation warning

2) Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the article probation provisions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Appeals of article probation sanctions

3) Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator or the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrative reversal of article probation sanctions

4) Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) arbitration committee approval to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Logging article probation sanctions

5) All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Wikilawyering and stonewalling

1) Excessive formalistic and legalistic argument over policies and stonewalling, which ignores the spirit of those policies and serves to obstruct consensus-building processes or cover up an agenda of POV-pushing, is harmful to the project and may be met with sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The matter of stonewalling/WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT has come up repeatedly.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Standard: Alleged behaviour in this case by antagonistic, uncivil, editors with stated biases.(olive (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Support. This is a repeated and serious problem. A review of the history of the talk pages on these articles shows that the identical issues come up again and again, year after year, and that tendatious editing is repeatedly used to ignore consensus, even unanimous consensus by univolved editors at appropriate noticeboards.Fladrif (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support as standard and any careful review of the talk pages will reveal which editors are involved. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Use of accounts

2) Creating accounts ("sockpuppetry") or coordinating accounts ("meatpuppetry") to manipulate the consensus process; to create alliances to reinforce a particular point of view, to engage in factional or tactical voting; to create "ownership" of articles; to evade topic bans or blocks; or to otherwise game the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Wikipedia operates by consensus. A group of editors who act together to skew that consensus in order to promote a point of view violate that core principle.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standard per Wikipedia.(olive (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Support. Clear policy. Fladrif (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support and I would ask anyone making a decision not to just read the evidence here but read the history of the talk-pages on any TM article to see how fake consensus is generated by the same editors, from the same town, with the same internet service provider agree time after time on issues that are obviously not NPOV Tucker ^talk 22:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Ownership

3) (a) Wikipedia pages do not have owners or custodians who control edits to them. Instead, they are "owned" by the community at large, which comes to a consensus version by means of discussion, negotiation, and/or voting. (b) This is a crucial part of Wikipedia as an open-content encylopedia. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Editors should not act singly or in groups to control articles.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standard per Wikipedia.(olive (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Support While observing that, rather than continuing to work with his intellectual opponents on the Talk pages, Will Beback became frustrated with the process and initiated these proceedings in order to get his opponents banned. Hickorybark (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ownership of the articles by the TM-Org editors is a huge problem here. MuZemike iniitated this proceeding, not Will, and without any input from Will.Fladrif (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Quality of sources

4) Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context. For this reason, academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable. In contrast, self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In the event of source disputes, policy requires editors to seek consensus on articles' talk pages; if this fails, the community's Reliable Sources Noticeboard is an appropriate forum for discussion and consensus-building.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed The best available sources should be used for Wikipedia articles.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia provides extensive information policies and guidelines on sources which trump any proposals made here. Further Notice Boards may help determine consensus on an article but Notice Boards are places for input from outside opinions which while respected who may or may not have expertise in the area discussed. (olive (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Suppport Olive's position is yet another example of Special pleading, which does not justify an editor ignoring NoticeBoard consensus on how the Reliable Sources policies are to be applied in specific instancesFladrif (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Neutrality and conflicts of interest

5) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings, all editors must strive to ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Editors should not promote be very careful when promoting their own interests.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC) revised 09:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reword per Wikipedia "accurately reflect significant viewpoints published by reliable sources while considering in terms of the articles and prominence in the sources WP:Weight.(olive (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Suppport Fladrif (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Outing

6) Per WP:Outing, outing has not occurred if an editor has previously voluntarily self-identified his or her country, language, nationality, or other personal information. Subsequent posting of that information by other users does not constitute outing. If a user has redacted that information, their wishes should be respected.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Revealing private information on Wikipedia is a serious issue. However "outing" does not include information that has been revealed voluntarily.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per prior ArbCom decision [55]. Editors and some admins have made repeated false accusations of outing misapplying this policy. Fladrif (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Involved administrators

7) In several recent instances, administrators involved in disputes have taken sysop actions relating to that dispute and then referred the actions typically to either the administrators' noticeboard or the incidents noticeboard for endorsement or review. This does not comply with policy. In such circumstances, the 'involved' administrator should not take the action but should instead report the issue to the noticeboard, perhaps with a suggestion for appropriate action, to be dealt with by an uninvolved administrator. In limited circumstances, such as blatant vandalism or bad-faith harassment, an involved administrator may act, but such exceptions are likely to be rare.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Administrators should not use the admin tools on topics where they've been involved, or concerning users with whom they've had significant interactions.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fladrif (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Plagiarism

8) Editors are expected to either write their own text or clearly distinguish copied text as a quotation. In a quotation, editors should also mark any deleted text.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Plagiarism is an academic violation. While Wikipedia does not require editors to meet all of the standards of academic writing, outright and uncorrected plagiarism harms the project's integrity and inevitably its reputation. If text is copied, any elisions or changes should be noted. This is basic to good encyclopedia construction and not limited to any particular content or stylistic choices.   Will Beback  talk  09:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fladrif (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

TM editors

1) Keithbob, Littleolive oil, TimidGuy, Bigweeboy, Luke Warmwater101, ChemistryProf, Hickorybark have all been significant editors of TM-related articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. These editors have dominated the TM-related articles and talk pages, in some cases making well over half of all edits.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction I have not been active on the core TM articles, as I am more interested in science and science biography. Hickorybark (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The John Hagelin biography is a core TM article since he is the Raja of Invincible America, a leader of the TM movement in the U.S., and the three-time presidential nominee of the movement's Natural Law Party, not to mention a member of the MUM faculty.   Will Beback  talk  16:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support.Fladrif (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Fairfield editors

2) Keithbob, Littleolive oil, TimidGuy, Bigweeboy, Luke Warmwater101, ChemistryProf, Hickorybark have all used the same IP networks based in Fairfield, Iowa, the headquarters of the TM movement in the U.S.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed This was proven by the Checkuser investigation. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors/Archive.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• While CU has connected IP's, significant evidence suggests IPs in this small town are interconnected because of the way the provider supplies IP. Suggesting Fairfield Iowa is the head of the TM movement is a misunderstanding of the town and its inhabitants. As suggested elsewhere, Fairfield is not remote although it is considered rural. Its inhabitants are predominantly not meditators. It is home to a university connected to the TM organization, and the university president also holds other positions in the organization. Suggestions by some editors to block all IPs from Fairfield is not a practical response.

And I have no idea what networks other editors use so cannot comment on that point.(olive (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I'm just an outsider so I can't claim to know the details of the inner workings of the movement. But inthe last few months I have learned a lot, and that includes the fact that the Fairfield/MVC settlement is the nominal capital of the Global Country of World Peace (GCWP) and home to the Raja of Invincible America and three-time presidential candidate, John Hagelin, and to the Prime Minister of both the GCWP and the U.S. Peace Government, Bevan Morris. Fairfield is foremost the home of the Maharishi University of Management. The faculty of the MUM, aside from including Morris and Hagelin, has conducted the majority of the oft-cited hundreds of studies on the Maharishi technologies. Many TM-related businesses have their HQs in Fairfield or MVC, including MAPI. In short, I can provide dozens of sources to show that Fairfield is the center of the US movement.   Will Beback  talk  10:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objection This evidence is very circumstantial and the speculative conclusions being extrapolated go far beyond what the evidence actually shows. In my case, for example, I do not live in Iowa. Hickorybark (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser does not, of course, show where a person lives, but it does show where a person edits.   Will Beback  talk  16:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. BwB wrote several times that he lived in the SE United States, and had posted recently from the UK and Middle East. Hickorybark says he doesn't live in Fairfield. Both, however, have posted through Fairfield-based ISP's per SPI and Checkuser. Fladrif (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Fairfield TM editors' conflicts of interest

3) The Fairfield TM editors have worked on topics related to TM personnel, businesses, and products centered in and around Fairfield, Iowa, about which they may reasonably be considered to have conflicts of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed Despite the general denials, this seems clear.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• An assumption. Conflict of interest refers to having "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." It is not up to any single editor to redefine COI (olive (talk) 07:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

None of the Fairfield TM editors have shown a tendency to put aside their allegiance to the TM movement. That's why they're grouped together. Other than a few pro forma additions of common criticisms, the Fairfield TM editors have consistently promoted or advocated in favor of the TM point of view. While it's impossible to get inside any editor's mind, it's easy to judge their contributions. Those of the Fairfield TM editors have promoted the TM movement's point of view over and over again, showing that they are unable to set aside their conflicts of interest.   Will Beback  talk  09:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose COI depends on more than circumstantial evidence and organizational affiliations. It has not been proven, or even effectively argued, that the editing in question has not contributed to WP's mission to provide reliable and non-defamatory articles. Hickorybark (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fladrif (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Ownership

4) The Fairfield TM editors have been the majority contributors to TM-related articles and talk page. They have agreed with each other in opposition to non-TM editors, have defended each other's edits, repeated the same edits, and other ownership traits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed As demonstrated in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence#Evidence presented by Will Beback

• In fact Will Beback's evidence does not show this except in so far as he draws these conclusions himself and attempts to connect those conclusions to the edits of editors . What is clear from Will Bebacks' evidence is that he is attempting to tar a group of editors including IP's with the same brush. He is blurring differentiation between editors so that all may be banned or blocked en masse.(olive (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The evidence shows that the Fairfield TM editors are the most prolific contributors to the TM-related articles. The Fairfield TM editors have sometimes edited while logged-out so the distinction between registered and unregistered edits is blurred by their own actions. One of the Fairfield TM editors, TimidGuy, chose to edit without logging-in for weeks and refused to identify himself, causing considerable disruption. Since all of the Fairfield TM editors promote the same POV, it's impossible to distinguish their edits from those of unregistered Fairfield TM editors who advocate the same way. Even aside from the IP edits and the now inactive old accounts, the current logged-in edits by the listed editors show strong ownership of the TM-related articles.   Will Beback  talk  09:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose All the editing practices mentioned, except the last, are consist with responsible, above-board editing practice. And "ownership traits" have not been proven. Hickorybark (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportFladrif (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Dispute resolution participation

1) Where differences in opinion over editorial content arise, editors are expected to engage in discussion or dispute resolution in a reasoned and civil manner. "Focus on content, not on the contributor" is an essential component of the editorial consensus-building process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, standard expectation of editor behavior. Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed, standard expectation of editor behavior. Dreadstar ☥ 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, paying attention to what others say, correctly applying policy, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Any form of disruptive editing or discussion is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions.